Greenpeace Rates Apple 4th Worst Eco-Friendly Tech Business, Apple Responds

[ezekielrage_99]

Congratulations! You just got added to the list.

I feel so accepted

Also read my post #241

 

[MacinDoc]

Free2B: I'm a Molecular Biologist by trade. I can assure you that: Evolution by natural selection is a fact. Within the mainstream scientific community, there is no debate.

Clarification: evolution by natural selection is a fact, but the theory that evolution by natural selection is the basis for the current diversity of species is a belief system extrapolated from that fact (and yes, I have degrees in zoology and physiology).

Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling.

Exactly. I have owned 4 Macs since 1988, and all 4 are still in use. So, 0% of the Macs I have ever purchased have been recycled (yet). Does that make me environmentally unfriendly? I guess Greenpeace hasn't heard that REUSE is one of the R's of environmental friendliness, one that is even more environmentally friendly than recycling...

 

[Free2B]

However hard to fathom, without a shadow of a doubt, everything we know of as today evolved from something of far more simple form, which at the time fitted perfectly within its environment, just as everything does now. What I think is difficult to appreciate is the immense time-scales that evolution has in order to achieve such apparently massive changes. If you were able to see evolution occur in real-time, or even within recent history, I'm sure it would make the process far easier to comprehend

But the diversity in the world seems far too great to have happened over even 5 billion years. There have been mathematical models that have proven it next to impossible for the world to have achieved such scale of life. So, we are to look at finch beaks, as Darwin and others have done, or fossils that inherently have holes in between the big changes in species as our evidence? Or that bacteria can "evolve" are immune to certain anti-biotics? Seems like wild theory if I've ever heard one. It actually insults my intelligence to think of such a crazy story. Can you truly observe evolution? I mean, on a level that is relevant? A species that suddenly becomes more complex over generations? If there is one, tell me, maybe you'll change my mind. If you can't observe it, then it will always be a theory, not a fact. And debate on it should happen.

Greenpeace and other groups serve a great purpose in simply bringing these issues to the forefront. If these groups did not exist, do you think the world would be a better, worse, or just a less informed place? By the way: Are you afraid of global warming? Bear in mind what I just pointed out about the desperately slow speed of evolution...The dinosaurs didn't make it - and these were by far the single most successful animal group to ever grace the planet - they lived for millennia!. What says that we will...

Not afraid of global warming. Actually, the upside of warmer temperatures is more farmland where there was none. Meaning more food for people. Oh yes, I know, we risk overpopulation, blah, blah, blah. Another tired old liberal argument that is absolutely ridiculous. The good news is that liberals don't have as many kids as conservatives do. Don't look now, but the libs might go the way of the dinos...

Why are you sure? Because you think they have morals? Responsibilities? Apple only cares about their shareholder's bottom line. They'll do the right thing if it's in the best interest of the company. That's why you, and I, and all of us have to put pressure on companies (and governments). They have no incentive to change otherwise.

I would have thought that a company with Al freaking Gore on its board would probably be pretty worried about environmentalism. GP just threw a little mud in Al's eye if you ask me. If you want to put pressure on companies, hurt their bottom line! Stop buying their products! I'm all for it! I avoid Microsoft products at all cost. Big buyer of Apple. I'd wear Apple underwear if they made it.

Not at all. But, buying for the sake of buying, or trashing goods that still do their job perfectly well, just to get a new model, is not a good environmental choice.

I actually don't buy much, but maybe we should tell this to all these people that have to buy new clothes every season. Isn't that a bit wasteful? how many shoes do some people need to own? Why doesn't GP go after clothing companies and fashion designers? Do we really need all these clothes??? Oh wait, I'll bet that most fashion designers support GP. Hmmmm. Nothing like looking the other way!

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I think the moral of this story is that 37 out of 369 people really could care about what greenpeace found and want to change because of it.

I know this is a very small poll but I really do think it reflects on Greenpeace's really influence (which is not much).

 

[Free2B]

Well said, but to me, the way to address overpopulation is to increase overall education and wealth. Affluent, well-educated people do not have many children. To the contrary, they actually have a negative growth rate.

Oh, and get rid of the Catholic church. They love making babies with no regards to the consequences

Yeah, great idea! And why don't we tell Muslims to have lots of kids because they like to blow themselves up and kill innocent people! That way we can control the world's population!

Really! Where do you get all this garbage about overpopulation??? We pay our farmers in this country to not produce so much food! I live in a tiny apartment in a large city, and I have plenty of room. Meanwhile there is land all over the place. You liberals keep believing this crap. This is one educated person (two master's degrees) that's going to have lots of kids. As everyone in my family has as well.

 

[MacinDoc]

Well said, but to me, the way to address overpopulation is to increase overall education and wealth. Affluent, well-educated people do not have many children. To the contrary, they actually have a negative growth rate.

Oh, and get rid of the Catholic church. They love making babies with no regards to the consequences

If disparaging comments were made about other faiths on this board, people would be outraged by the intolerance. I think it's time for this whole thread to be moved to the wasteland...

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

You are just wrong. This is obviously not your field.

That is correct, this is not my field. However, I am a published research scientist in a applied mathematical field, so I think I am capable of reading scientific material.

If you had read the journal "Geophysics" on a regular basis as I do, you would realize that most classical Geophysicists do believe we are in a global warming cycle but they do not believe that man is responsible.

Does the geophysic community believe that the increased CO2 level is caused by something else that human activity? If so how do we account for the CO2 resulting from burning fossile fuel the past 150 years? Is it just a fluke incident we can see a significant kink in the CO2 level at the beginning of industrialization? Does geophysics as a dicipline ignore that?
If not, are there any theoretical testable models in geophysics that have verified that increased CO2 level caused by humans are negligible? If so please give me a reference to an established peer reviewed scientific journal and I will read it. if not, do not claim that geophysicist regard human interference as insigificant in modeling earths temperature.

Moreover, among theorists it has long been known that black box models (neural networks) are a much better predictor than actually trying to evaluate a theoretical model when we have encounter very complex dynamical systems. This is done daily in many scientific disciplines, e.g. particlephysics and meterology to name a few. These models are solely use to make predictions. They dont explain anything about what is going on as a theoretcal model would do. Nevertheless, Black Box models are often used at the cutting edge of science when theoretical models just don't give sufficiently accurate results.

it is just these Black Box models that are being used today to predict the temperature of the earth. I am fully aware of other models, but as long as they haven't been tested they can't be used to make any decisions.

Only the environmental scientists who focus on computer models make this claim. I never said that models aren't a viable means of scientific study. I only stated that classical geophysicists believe that the current environmental models being used by environmental scientists are way too simple and not accurate. Just because their models are inaccurate does not mean that all models used in all science are inaccurate.

Believe is the keyword here. The best predictor today in absence of a tested theoretical model is a Black Box model. I am surprised that there are models that does totally excludes human interactions. As I wrote in my previous post. You don't get published if you sing with the choir...and publish you must...

The current simple models do not take into account many factors which environmental scientists have very little known data about.

of course not... that is how a Black Box model works.

For example, carbonate reef production takes place at highly variable rates. In a CO2 rich environment the ocean can absorb high amounts of CO2 and produce carbonate rich sediment. This is not a static process. When C02 levels are low and temperatures are cool carbonate production is slowed. When CO2 is high and temperatures are higher this processs is increased. The amount of CO2 absorption is staggering in classical studies. Most environmental models do not take this properly into consideration.

Also as you know the suns activity level is on an approximate 11 year cycle. However there may actually be a larger cycle that is not being properly accounted for. The data is still out on that one.

Also the Earths core has many processes which also effect temperature and magnetic field strength. In fact there have been many periods of temperature cycle fluctions that occur around the periods when the earths magnetic pole flip-flop. North pole becomes South and South becomes North. The exact cause for this is unknown.

Also there is no accurate measurement on how much CO2 is lost to space. NASA just recently examined a solar flare which ripped-off a huge chunk of ozone and other atmospheric gases. Until this recent observation we were not aware that losses of this magnitude to space were possible.

Again the theoretical models are just not there yet... Hence, we are stuck with Black Box models as the best predictor.

You are also using the term "normal temperature cycles" improperly. The earth is well within past norms for periods of temperature fluctuation. The earth has had much, much , higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. All you have to do is examine the geologic record. The earth has also been much, much, hotter in the past.

The normal cycles you are referring to are the normal measured cycles within the last several hunderd years. In fact this is what most of the environmental scientists base their data on.

I might have been a bit careless about my choice of words, but I sincerly thought you would understand. I am fully aware that the variation of the earths temperaure isnt given by one symmetrical cycle but rather many, not yet explained, cycles interlaced with each other. Since we don't know exactly what causes these cycles, the best predictor, again, is to use a Black Box model.
Ice age in the last hundred years, where did I say that???
You are aware of that most "simplified studies" are from measuring CO2 leves in ice cores? These give you the CO2 level slightly longer timespan than a couple of hundred years back. If you take this data set and run it, you will see there is significant kink that cant be explained as a natural phenomon.

Classical geologists and geophysicists base their studies on the rock column which is billions of years old. If you studied the Earth's past you would learn that at one time the entire Earth had a methane atmosphere which would have been deadly to life as we know it. But fotunately for us it changed. It is constantly changing there is no normal.

Humans, or mamals for that matter, has only inhabbited earth for a very very short time from a geological perspective. The conditions on earth before mamals entered the scene is hardly relevant here unless you plan on morphing to something else.

The onlw way to survive long term on this planet is to adapt because change is going to happen.

Now you are talking about evolution. The biggest problem here is that the evolutionary process just doesnt work that fast. (for a classical reference see e.g Zuckerland & Pauling, J. Theoret. Biol. 1965) If the climate changes too fast, we will most likely see the extinction of more or less all life on earth. Life just doesnt handle fast climate changes very well.

The environment will never reach equilibrium long term, regardless of what man does.

...and just how do you know that????? Do you know how the dynamic of the climate of earth works? Can you prove there doesn't exist states where from the earth e.g.. just gets warmer and warmer? If so, please give me the references to a/several articles in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
But please, if you want to continue this discussion send me a PM, since we are way off topic now.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I guess I used the word "prominent" because the guy is at MIT. Ok, just a tenured professor at a pretty good school known for its science.

There are many professors that has stoped publishing in peer reviewed journals since they just dont cut it anymore. When they stop thye normally publish their "findings" in normal newspapers. Unless you see references to peer reviewed journals I would be very careful to put too much weight on what is written, regardless if the professor is from MIT or not.

Just because it's not in a peer reviewed journal you discredit that there is a difference of opinion? The evidence is apparent in the article--maybe you should go read it.

This just why there are peer reviewed journals. Most non-scientists have no idea weather it is complete nonsense or not. That is why all publications are made in peer reviewed journals.

Meteorologists can barely predict the weather on a day to day basis. Who, therefore, can truly say what is causing global climate change? (My point, not the "guy at MIT"). I'm not saying there isn't any global warming and that humans aren't causing some change. I just don't think we should say the sky is falling and the world is going to come to an end unless we all move back to the caves.

No serious scientist would stick his neck out and claim they know exacly what is causes global temperature changes. It is most likely a very very complex process. However, it is known that CO2 is a potent green house gas. It is also known that humans for the past 150 has burned staggering amount of fossile fuel and thus causing the earth to become warmer. It is also known that these processes have a very long lagg. That is, the time from CO2 is released in the atmosphere and when we see the effects of it is long, decades even. We also know that life is very sensitive to temperature changes. For example, just a couple of degrees warmer water will kill of the coral reefs.
The safty principle and the above facts tell us that since we dont know exactly what causes global temperature changes, we should try to minimize our impact on the system or we could render all life on earth extinct.

 

[Gasu E.]

I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?

Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.

When did you get put in charge of "the list?" And when did you gain the right to make sweeping moral judgements, as reflected in your tactical mis-use of the word "bigoted"?

I am pro-environment and pro-corporate responsibility; nevertheless I find your "list" to be extremely "ethically challenged" in and of itself. I believe in changing the world through realistic incentives, rather than name-calling and "list"-making.

 

[tcctre]

Well consider myself pretty liberal but Greenpeace is one of the few organizations I will go out of my way NOT to support.

If I can take money out of their (Greenpeace)'s pocket I will do it. Heck
when their boat sinks (yes that big diesel boat that they have that belches
smoke) I will applaud.

So for me buying 4 Macs (2 laptops and 2 desktops) over the last 2 years makes me very happy that in some small way it will piss off Greenpeace.

go me

 

[Spectrum]

But the diversity in the world seems far too great to have happened over even 5 billion years. There have been mathematical models that have proven it next to impossible for the world to have achieved such scale of life. So, we are to look at finch beaks, as Darwin and others have done, or fossils that inherently have holes in between the big changes in species as our evidence? Or that bacteria can "evolve" are immune to certain anti-biotics? Seems like wild theory if I've ever heard one. It actually insults my intelligence to think of such a crazy story. Can you truly observe evolution? I mean, on a level that is relevant? A species that suddenly becomes more complex over generations? If there is one, tell me, maybe you'll change my mind. If you can't observe it, then it will always be a theory, not a fact. And debate on it should happen.

So you think it is more likely that the universe with its almost infinite degree of complexity was more likely to have been "created" ? Do you have any idea just how complex any single protein, that performs any one process within a single organelle of a single cell of a single organism, is?
It is incomprehensible that all of this could have come about from anything other than massively parallel random changes in response to environmental pressure.

But aside from this, proteins are made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of a number of subatomic particles with varying physical attributes. Did the "supreme creator" work all this out too? Did he say: "Well, I want to crate man, so first things first: I'll design a quark."

All we are, is the result of a fantastic set of random chances, which given enough time can, and will, produce anything.

 

[Spectrum]

When did you get put in charge of "the list?" And when did you gain the right to make sweeping moral judgements, as reflected in your tactical mis-use of the word "bigoted"?

I am pro-environment and pro-corporate responsibility; nevertheless I find your "list" to be extremely "ethically challenged" in and of itself. I believe in changing the world through realistic incentives, rather than name-calling and "list"-making.

Well, I cannot backtrack, I created the list, so it's all on my head. I'm pretty p!$$¢d off at the list too. It's really not my nature to create animosity and confrontation. I apologise for those that I have offended. I am sure Greenpeace has its faults. Whether Apple truly should be at number 1, or right at the bottom, makes no difference. To me, this is about putting pressure on ALL organisations and individuals to think about their consumption.

 

[digitalbiker]

...and just how do you know that????? Do you know how the dynamic of the climate of earth works? Can you prove there doesn't exist states where from the earth e.g.. just gets warmer and warmer? If so, please give me the references to a/several articles in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

I know that the Earth will never reach climate equlibrium long term because these are not static systems they are dynamic. The Earth has never been stable long term in the past and it won't be in the future. The sun is ever so slowly using all of it's fuel it will slowly be expanding until one day it will completely destroy the Earth and encompass it. The universe is slowly expanding into infinity until entropy reaches zero. The Andomeda galaxy is currently coliding with the Milky way galaxy and they are slowly ripping apart the fabric of the two galaxies and it will completely change the dynamics of our solar system. In the past Earth has colided with meteors and/or comets and in all likelyhood it will sometime again. Therefore long term equilibrium is impossible.

I agree that we are off subject and we will just have to agree to disagree.

You base your entire argument on the assumption that rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere are creating global warming. While I don't disagree that this is a valid possibility there are other equally valid possibilities.

Study of the the geologic column shows that as the Earths temperature has risen in the past that CO2 levels have also risen. They are most certainly linked. But what causes what? Man has been on the Earth for such a short period of time and we happen to be here when the Earth's temperature is rising. As the Earth's temperature rises, sea level rises, erosion of shorelindes increase which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Carbonate reefs are destroyed which release CO2 into the atmosphere, etc. etc. The evidence for directly linking man's production of CO2 and the Earth's current temperature rise is not as clear cut as you are citing.

The only thng that the data from ice cap studies shows is that since man has been on this planet the Earth's temperature has been increasing and CO2 (and other greehouse gases) have been rising.

Look to me it really doesn't matter anyway. No one wants to pollute the Earth if we don't have to to survive. I personally advocate reducing CO2 emissions anyway. It is a good thing to live respectful of your environment. I just sometimes take offense at all of the scare tactics that groups take to obtain their desired behavior for you. I would much rather see people properly educated and taught to be respectful of the environment not because they are afraid of destroying the planet and all life as we know it. But to respect environment because it is a good way to live and it is better for all of us.

 

[Spectrum]

Where do you get all this garbage about overpopulation??? We pay our farmers in this country to not produce so much food! I live in a tiny apartment in a large city, and I have plenty of room. Meanwhile there is land all over the place. You liberals keep believing this crap. This is one educated person (two master's degrees) that's going to have lots of kids. As everyone in my family has as well.

Did you forget about the other half of the planet? The one that is living on less than $1 a day and starving to death?

By overpopulation people are forced into harsher and harsher environments - even in the US - look at what the interstate system has achieved: Urban sprawl into areas of questionable safety: Into hurricane prone areas, areas prone to flooding, areas prone to drought, areas prone to forest fires...

Doesn't it make more sense to have the same number of children that you equal now - e.g. 2-3 (allowing for mortality) ? What benefit to the the human race is there in having more kids?

 

[bryanc]

Even so, I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the book being rubbish.

Even for it's time, it was very poorly researched, making many factual errors, but fundamentally, Behe's position boils down to "I can't imagine how this complex system could've evolved, so it must've been created." Fortunately, Behe's failure of imagination was not a limitation for other scientists, who've gone on to elucidate the evolutionary basis for many of the 'irreducibly complex' systems Behe describes, and work continues on more.

Darwin's Black Box makes two points. The first is that some biochemical processes appear to be inaccessible to Darwinian mechanisms. And the second is that such 'irreducibly complex systems' imply the action of some supernatural creator.

The first point is simply, and demonstrably false for all systems we have so far investigated (it remains possible that some day a system that could not have evolved by natural selection may be found, but none that have been found present any such problem). The second point is simply not a scientifically testable hypothesis. If you want to believe that, that's your business, but it has no scientific support.

I thought the book made some very valid points regarding the intelligent design theory, which has nevertheless survived until today.

Not in science it hasn't. There is no scientific support for ID, and the scientific community has unequivocally rejected it as a Trojan Horse for Creationism used by religious fundamentalists to pervert the biology curriculum in the school system.

And there is still a debate which is ongoing.

Only a political debate. There has been no doubt of the validity of evolutionary theory in the biological community for nearly a century. This is not to say that it is beyond question... all scientific theories are continuously under scrutiny, and must continue to provide explanatory power for all observed data. And evolutionary biology is a very active field of research... while there is no doubt that evolution happens, there is still a great deal we do not understand about specific mechanisms and evolutionary relationships between taxa.

As for evolution, I can believe a finch's beak can change size based on environmental/food supply changes. But to believe that my legs were one time fins....billions of years ago, of course (no debate on age of the earth). I just can't get there.

Like Behe's, you're failure of imagination, has no bearing on the problem. Personally, I can't imagine sub-atomic particles, or intergalactic distances, so I rely on the capabilities of the scientific method and the scientists in those fields to draw supportable conclusions based on data, rather than my limited imagination.

But the diversity in the world seems far too great to have happened over even 5 billion years. There have been mathematical models that have proven it next to impossible for the world to have achieved such scale of life.

Link? Not that it really matters, as the empirical evidence proves that any such models are incorrect.

So, we are to look at finch beaks, as Darwin and others have done, or fossils that inherently have holes in between the big changes in species as our evidence?

The fossil record is only one of many independent and mutually supportive lines of evidence that support the theory. If you are interested in the vast diversity of supportive evidence underpinning our current understanding of evolution, I suggest you enrol in a few biology courses at the university of your choice.

Or that bacteria can "evolve" are immune to certain anti-biotics? Seems like wild theory if I've ever heard one. It actually insults my intelligence to think of such a crazy story.

I'm sorry you find it insulting, but this is one of the most clear and well understood examples of evolution. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics all the time, and that's a big problem for us (despite the fact that we know how they do it, we can't stop it from happening, and it makes killing the damn things much more difficult).

Can you truly observe evolution?

Yes.

I mean, on a level that is relevant?

Yes.

A species that suddenly becomes more complex over generations?

Not 'suddenly' by human time-scale, but yes.

If there is one, tell me, maybe you'll change my mind.

Check out these links.

If you can't observe it, then it will always be a theory, not a fact. And debate on it should happen.

Evolution is a well documented fact, and an astoundingly well-supported theory. We had a debate... it's been over since before you were born. Lot's of new evidence has emerged since the scientific debate over evolution was settled, and all of it supports evolution.

Cheers

 

[macidiot]

If disparaging comments were made about other faiths on this board, people would be outraged by the intolerance. I think it's time for this whole thread to be moved to the wasteland...

I'd hardly call the truth a disparaging comment.

 

[macidiot]

Yeah, great idea! And why don't we tell Muslims to have lots of kids because they like to blow themselves up and kill innocent people! That way we can control the world's population!

Really! Where do you get all this garbage about overpopulation??? We pay our farmers in this country to not produce so much food! I live in a tiny apartment in a large city, and I have plenty of room. Meanwhile there is land all over the place. You liberals keep believing this crap. This is one educated person (two master's degrees) that's going to have lots of kids. As everyone in my family has as well.

For someone who claims to have 2 masters degrees, you seem to have a pretty provincial outlook on the world. To think that your particular life experience is the same as the rest of the world is pretty absurd.

We pay farmers to not produce food, true. But, America (I'm assuming you live here), also happens to be the wealthiest country in the world. And has a relatively small population compared to land and food.

Additionally, the US, if not for immigration and the poor, would have a negative population growth rate. Which is typical for a first world post-industrial country.

Which, like I said, is what one needs to do to control population: educate and create wealth.

And why is that? Because as people move up the economic/education ladder, they realize what it costs to properly raise a child. They understand the concept of proper nutrition, education, health, etc. In the US it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in food, clothing, medical care, education costs, etc. to raise a child. The cost of duplicating my education for a child today would be well over 400 thousand dollars. Now obviously, there are things in place where you can transfer those costs to others. But I for one, would rather support my child on my own, rather than rely on the largesse of the people. Hence, I really can't afford to have 10 children.

You might be well educated, and apparently, you must be extremely wealthy, to plan on having lots of children. Otherwise, I suppose you can thank my taxes and alumni giving for supporting your children. Which is another reason I can't have a large family. I'll be supporting yours.

 

[Spectrum]

Check out these links.

Thanks for a great post, and some great links.

 

[mpstrex]

Wow, Spectrum, you are truly a socialist, congrats. I'll try and find a red star for you. You truly think people having too many kids is a bad thing. Whew! Do you believe in laws to control how many kids should be allowed, who is allowed to do so, etc.? Wow, maybe we'll have a great government that can control our lives like that.

And yes, I support adoption, too--three of my cousins are adopted and a close friend has adopted two kids from China in the last 3 years.

 

[MacinDoc]

I'd hardly call the truth a disparaging comment.

To say that the world should rid itself of an identifiable group is hardly an enlightened truth.

Darwin's Black Box makes two points. The first is that some biochemical processes appear to be inaccessible to Darwinian mechanisms. And the second is that such 'irreducibly complex systems' imply the action of some supernatural creator.

The first point is simply, and demonstrably false for all systems we have so far investigated (it remains possible that some day a system that could not have evolved by natural selection may be found, but none that have been found present any such problem). The second point is simply not a scientifically testable hypothesis. If you want to believe that, that's your business, but it has no scientific support.Cheers

Neither is it scientifically testable that the incredible complexity and diversity present in the universe today occurred as a matter of random chance. Being able to observe adaptations and speciation does not prove that life arose spontaneously or that the current diversity was a result of it.

I have no problem with people believing that the origin of species was a result of random chance, but this is no more or less a belief than intelligent design.

So you think it is more likely that the universe with its almost infinite degree of complexity was more likely to have been "created" ? Do you have any idea just how complex any single protein, that performs any one process within a single organelle of a single cell of a single organism, is?
It is incomprehensible that all of this could have come about from anything other than massively parallel random changes in response to environmental pressure.

But aside from this, proteins are made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of a number of subatomic particles with varying physical attributes. Did the "supreme creator" work all this out too? Did he say: "Well, I want to crate man, so first things first: I'll design a quark."

I don't understand this argument. It's like arguing that a blind man trying to walk from New York City to Los Angeles is more likely to get there by relying on chance alone than if he is using a GPS. God's omniscience is an important part of Christian belief.

All we are, is the result of a fantastic set of random chances, which given enough time can, and will, produce anything.

The question is, has there been enough time since the origin of the universe for this amazing combination of random chances to have occurred, considering that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or deleterious.

 

[Spectrum]

Wow, Spectrum, you are truly a socialist, congrats. I'll try and find a red star for you. You truly think people having too many kids is a bad thing. Whew! Do you believe in laws to control how many kids should be allowed, who is allowed to do so, etc.? Wow, maybe we'll have a great government that can control our lives like that.

You missed my point: It is about individual responsibility. You come to the sensible course of action based on impartial information, scientific reasoning, and social responsibility.

 

[Spectrum]

I don't understand this argument. It's like arguing that a blind man trying to walk from New York City to Los Angeles is more likely to get there by relying on chance alone than if he is using a GPS.

Not at all! The blind man is more likely to end up ANYWHERE! That is what is so fascinating about evolution by natural selection. There is NO direction. We were as likely to have ended up where we are now, as at any other one of infinite number of places.

Evolution is in fact very similar to navigation by GPS! Random chance will get you nowhere without selection. But in the same way, GPS will get you nowhere if you don't follow the directions - an equivalent form of selection.
The only difference is that in GPS you apparently KNOW where you are going, which is never the case in nature.

We could have ended up with 100 eyes, no arms, wings, 16 legs, and been the size of a small beetle - would you still argue that WE were made in God's image? It's all about infinite possibilities under selective pressure.

The question is, has there been enough time since the origin of the universe for this amazing combination of random chances to have occurred,

Yes. But only in conjunction with selection. The time-scale is enormous in relation to the number of generations since the ancestral organisms - modern bacteria can reproduce every 20-30 minutes. Let's be conservative and give them a week (during the very beginnings of life, generation time was likely much slower than it is now. And it slows down again in the subset of organisms that gain complexity).
So they originated about 2000 million years ago. That's 2,000,000,000 x 365.24 days / 7 = 104,354,285,714

One hundred BILLION generations.

But that would just be for a single lineage! Evolution is massively parallel. We may like our Core 2 Duos compared to our G4s, but imagine a billion cores, all mutating randomly, under slightly differing selective pressure.

Then add in cross breeding, and horizontal genetic transfer - the possibilities are truly unfathomable.

Heck, I could be out in my assumption/calculation by two orders of magnitude, and that is still 1 billion generations. Plenty of time!

considering that the vast majority of mutations are harmful or deleterious.

By what yardstick? How on earth can you judge that? Everything as it is now, did originate by mutation, but once it becomes "the norm" it no longer looks like a mutation. Being a genetic mutant is only a relative term.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

When did you get put in charge of "the list?" And when did you gain the right to make sweeping moral judgements, as reflected in your tactical mis-use of the word "bigoted"?

I am pro-environment and pro-corporate responsibility; nevertheless I find your "list" to be extremely "ethically challenged" in and of itself. I believe in changing the world through realistic incentives, rather than name-calling and "list"-making.

I totally agree with your point, I got on the list and I doubt this person read any of my other posts.....

I find it funny how I can exercise my democratic rights to be pc or not pc with yet I doubt the person who make the list can't see they we making a down right anti democratic list. Why don't they just stick a Star of David on those user who made it to the list? It's essentially the same thing. Or even better why don't they just stick every person who they don't agree with their point of view in one of those camps, then they would never have to listen to anything against thier set of values again.

I believe Stalin said something to the extent "War solves all problems with man, no man no problem".

 

[I'mAMac]

That is correct, this is not my field. However, I am a published research scientist in a applied mathematical field, so I think I am capable of reading scientific material.

Does the geophysic community believe that the increased CO2 level is caused by something else that human activity? If so how do we account for the CO2 resulting from burning fossile fuel the past 150 years? Is it just a fluke incident we can see a significant kink in the CO2 level at the beginning of industrialization? Does geophysics as a dicipline ignore that?
If not, are there any theoretical testable models in geophysics that have verified that increased CO2 level caused by humans are negligible? If so please give me a reference to an established peer reviewed scientific journal and I will read it. if not, do not claim that geophysicist regard human interference as insigificant in modeling earths temperature.

Moreover, among theorists it has long been known that black box models (neural networks) are a much better predictor than actually trying to evaluate a theoretical model when we have encounter very complex dynamical systems. This is done daily in many scientific disciplines, e.g. particlephysics and meterology to name a few. These models are solely use to make predictions. They dont explain anything about what is going on as a theoretcal model would do. Nevertheless, Black Box models are often used at the cutting edge of science when theoretical models just don't give sufficiently accurate results.

it is just these Black Box models that are being used today to predict the temperature of the earth. I am fully aware of other models, but as long as they haven't been tested they can't be used to make any decisions.



Believe is the keyword here. The best predictor today in absence of a tested theoretical model is a Black Box model. I am surprised that there are models that does totally excludes human interactions. As I wrote in my previous post. You don't get published if you sing with the choir...and publish you must...



of course not... that is how a Black Box model works.



Again the theoretical models are just not there yet... Hence, we are stuck with Black Box models as the best predictor.


I might have been a bit careless about my choice of words, but I sincerly thought you would understand. I am fully aware that the variation of the earths temperaure isnt given by one symmetrical cycle but rather many, not yet explained, cycles interlaced with each other. Since we don't know exactly what causes these cycles, the best predictor, again, is to use a Black Box model.
Ice age in the last hundred years, where did I say that???
You are aware of that most "simplified studies" are from measuring CO2 leves in ice cores? These give you the CO2 level slightly longer timespan than a couple of hundred years back. If you take this data set and run it, you will see there is significant kink that cant be explained as a natural phenomon.


Humans, or mamals for that matter, has only inhabbited earth for a very very short time from a geological perspective. The conditions on earth before mamals entered the scene is hardly relevant here unless you plan on morphing to something else.


Now you are talking about evolution. The biggest problem here is that the evolutionary process just doesnt work that fast. (for a classical reference see e.g Zuckerland & Pauling, J. Theoret. Biol. 1965) If the climate changes too fast, we will most likely see the extinction of more or less all life on earth. Life just doesnt handle fast climate changes very well.

...and just how do you know that????? Do you know how the dynamic of the climate of earth works? Can you prove there doesn't exist states where from the earth e.g.. just gets warmer and warmer? If so, please give me the references to a/several articles in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
But please, if you want to continue this discussion send me a PM, since we are way off topic now.

I agree with gargoyle. Even thought it is long, i read it. and BTW, whoever said the man isnt at all responsible for global warming...well just read gargoyle's post. (he burned you digital biker)

 

[Pale Rider]

Back to topic

Additional arguments against Greenpeace's and other groups' environmental attacks on Apple:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/92974C85-AD76-436C-A4AC-EB52E4D969D6.html