Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life Is Wrong
The objective of this essay is to establish, by a video (https://vimeo.com/224854624) about the nesting bald eagles in Smith Rock State Park (2017) by George Lepp, that Dawin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life is wrong.
However, to do this I must first convince a reader that wrong scientific ideas have been proven to be wrong and how they have been simply proven to be wrong.
An example: Albert Einstein theoretically concluded an idea that gravity could bend the path of light. To check the possible validity of this idea astronomers positioned themselves in the path of the next total solar eclipse to observe if the light of star passing near the sun at that time would be bent from the path they could calculate from measurements made at times when its light did not past near the sun.
And based upon these observations made at different times and their basic understanding of astronomy they concluded that his idea seemed to be valid because the light of the star was bent that amount that Einstein’s theory predicted it should.
However, a quote of Albert Einstein was and still is: “No amount of experimentations can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Hence, the observations of the astronomers did not prove his idea to be right; but they certainly did not prove it to be wrong. In other words, to establish this point, the astronomers, who rushed to the total solar eclipse’s path to observe this star, only did so to test if his theory was wrong.
However, until I did some literature search for this essay, I had not read that Darwin, himself, had specifically defined what observation would simply prove his theory (idea) to be wrong. At (https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/) Darwin wrote: “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1]
Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2]
Footnotes:
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
Ibid. p. 158.”
If you have not yet viewed the video, you must do so now!!!
Surely an eagle pair (male and female) are a ‘complex organ’. A common question which commonly leads to an endless debate is: Which came first: the chicken or the egg? As you viewed the video and observed the extreme care with which this eagle pair incubated their eggs, the answer should be obvious and seemingly undebatable. Do I need to ask: Could have eagles ever reproduced themselves if they did not intuitively know how to incubate the eggs?
Do I need to ask: Who programmed these eagle parents to intuitively incubate the eggs before they actually became parents? Do I need to ask: Is Darwin’s idea about the origin of life, according to his own test criteria, wrong? Based upon simple observation the answer must be YES!!!
Header image: BoardGameGeek
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
James McGinn
| #
So, instinct could not have evolved (are not inheritable) therefore evolution is wrong.
This is your whole argument, Jerry. So, your argument is immediately dismissible to anybody, like myself, who believes instincts can evolve (are inheritable).
Generally when I encounter people that lack the ability to separate their religious conviction from their scientific pursuits I recommend that they avoid science. Because the path ahead will only ever produce frustration.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Again, thank you, thank, thank you!!!
Your WORLD is the one you (and philosophers REASON and the WORLD of me and fellow SCIENTISTS is that which we OBSERVE (SEE).
Fellow PSI Readers, do you understand this DIFFERENCE???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I don’t have a problem with what you believe. Mostly I have a problem with you wasting my time.
I have encountered that when people like yourself that have deep religious convictions in the context of scientific discussions they (you) are blind to the fact that they (you) are operating in a deceptive and dishonest manner, concealing your true agenda.
People display very low moral standards when defending their religion.
So, I don’t have a problem with your beliefs. I have a problem with you using your conviction as an excuse for the dishonesty of your approach.
James McGinn / Genius
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valve of the atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Vortices-are-the-Pressure-Relief-Valve-of-the-atmosphere-e94ivv
James McGinn /
over and over again when dealing with people that have deep religious convictions is that they (you) are blind to the fact that you are operating in a deceptive and dishonest manner, concealing your true agenda.
So, I don’t have a problem with your beliefs. I have a problem with you using your conviction as an excuse for the dishonesty of your approach.
James McGinn / Genius
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valve of the atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Vortices-are-the-Pressure-Relief-Valve-of-the-atmosphere-e94ivv
James McGinn /
Reply
THOMAS W ADAMS
| #
The religion in question contains this leading instruction: “By deceit thou shall succeed”; the primary purpose of this “said” religion is: The total destruction of all other foundational historical cultures and beliefs, which when complete, result in the total annihilation of the culture or “Race” of peoples, for whom, these destroyed beliefs were the “glue” that held them together. This process leads to the survival of only one race or culture, which then confirms their belief of being “The Chosen Ones”. This is a multi generational strategy and is largely implemented through control and ownership of large media, Communication and entertainment Corporations. They also control all commanding heights of Banking, Government and Economies. Don’t believe it? Then do the due diligence for yourself, start with the Federal Reserve, and work your way down.
Reply
lloyd
| #
Jerry. Your use of capitalization as a means to show how important your concepts are is the mark of a poor writer. If you write well, we will get the point.
Reply
Cadbury Walz
| #
Generally when I encounter someone that accepts the religion of science over actual, demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable, provable experiments that anyone can do to discredit the lies and the cult like religion of science, I recommend they find a new religion based on truth.
Reply
Curtis Blow
| #
So many people wrap themselves in the fabric of science. They see any connections to God or a higher power as superstition and foolishness. They prefer concrete facts. It gives their lives structure, meaning and a truth based foundation as opposed to fairy tales.
But what happens when they discover the pillars of science are not set in stone at all. That indeed science itself is just another religion.
What is a religion? Is it not a set of information found in texts that the average person cannot verify themselves? How is astronomy or Geology any different than Christianity or Islam?
The concepts of these texts are all taken in faith alone. Thus all are religions.
The science based believer is just that a believer. If one cannot do experiments themselves to prove the validity of stated information, then the information must be accepted on faith alone.
Science states that the earth is a globe with a molten core a mantle and a crust. Yet the deepest of any penetration of the earth ever is just 8 miles. How could they know? Answer they don’t. But still put it in the textbooks and it somehow becomes established science. They do this with so many things like space, carbon dating, viruses, etc.
Outright lies and bad guesses are turned into so called science. And the person who is tired of all the different religions out there mistakenly turns to science for a solid belief system.
Only to find out that it’s not solid at all and full of lies. A religion of nothing.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Curtis.
You ask: “What is a religion? Is it not a set of information found in texts that the average person cannot verify themselves?” Is the person, who ‘took’ this video week after week, LYING???
Do you eat eggs, or do you know someone who eats eggs? Do you know that a hen (female bird commonly called a chicken) laid that egg? The average person did not take the video but I submit that the average person knows that the eggs they have eaten was each laid by a hen. And I submit that this average person generally knows that the hen was hatched from an egg. Maybe the average person does not personally know that the egg from which the hen was hatched was incubated either by another hen or by humans which artificially incubated the eggs were eaten or the eggs from which other other hens were hatched. For this cycle needs to have been repeated over and over and over to perpetuate the existence of the bird which an average person terms to be a chicken and eventually a mature hen. And we should not forget the observed fact there needs to a male rooster involved in this cycle also.
And Curtis, I thank you too, as I thanked James, for giving, what I just wrote, a context. For hopefully an average person will read this and possibly understand both what you wrote and what I wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Religion” is simply a label given to some organization with a doctrine regarding one or more deities that a group of people belong to, and practice things to do with it. While usually concerned with a devout form of worship, it can also be used for control.
While most just want to do what’s needed, there is an element of certain religions that frown on any kind of perceived alternative view and a sermon ensues. These tiresome members of the group will muscle in on any conversation, in any place, in an attempt to win converts and batter the unlucky victim of their attention with negativity regarding the victims choices of deity or subject matter. Youtube is a favourite haunt for these characters. Discuss anything deemed evil and you’ll be contacted.
One does not need to be an affiliate of a religion to know and love God.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
“One does not need to be an affiliate of a religion to know and love God.”
What a TRUTH!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
TrIsh
| #
“While usually concerned with a devout form of worship, it can also be used for control” Howdy, Howdy…you said this in regard to religion. True enough. We see how “science” can be used the same way…climate change, COVID. But here the government takes control and that is much more pernicious. One can CHOOSE religion, whether it controls them or not. When governments get their authoritarian fangs and limited knowledge to limit freedoms & individual thought, there you have a MUCH bigger problem. Oh so obvious in present day theatrics.
Waynes World
| #
If evolution is true, where are all the transitioned species? Where is the part ape/part man species? Where are the fish that crawl? Where are all the transitional creatures?
Are we to believe that the earth is as old as it is because “science” tells us that carbon dating is an effective way to estimate the age of rocks and fossils? How does the layman know that carbon dating is even legit?
As always the individual has to decide whether the tools of science are real or just made up to help forward the agenda of those that control humanity.
Evolution is just a theory and a weak one at that.
Reply
bmatkin
| #
Wayne: What you say is true, but that argument will not sway believers in evolution to bend their deeply held (religious) convictions.
Many scientists have pointed out that small, sure, slow steps could not have evolved the eye, the knee, wings (multiple times) as they are very very complex systems.
The real proof is one point in the article. How did eagles evolve the ability to nest and tend an egg? How did the eye match up with the “brain program” to make it work?
What purpose was the bones of the knee prior to aligning perfectly in order to work?
None of these arguments will sway the cultists of evolution because they must believe in order for their personal world view to be maintained.
The only thing that will dislodge a person from a wrongly held deep and sincere belief is when they are “shocked” into a reality that highlights their error.
I have stopped trying to persuade evolutionists of their beliefs. If they can never see the extensive and clear evidence the best I can do is to make sure that no more taxpayers dollars are wasted trying to prove that genesis story of human secularism.
Reply
RAD1
| #
Not too long ago there was a Russian (I recall) study on foxes, interbreeding tamer and friendlier animals over several generations and yielding foxes which made gentle pets. Sociobiological studies document many instances of propensity for certain behaviors being heritable traits. Protection of eggs/infants would seem to be a trait leading to perpetuation of genes influencing those behaviors. It is not surprising to me that nurturing behaviors have been selected for after millions of generations.
Reply
bmatkin
| #
Your reply is so patently simplistic as it is self evidently wrong.
What you’ve done is start with a fox and end with a fox. What you’ve proved is that intelligent tinkering can alter the traits of a fox. It did not occur in nature.
Reply
RAD1
| #
I don’t think my answer was simple enough. If you read the original article you will see the author was discussing the complex nesting behavior of eagles. Behavior. My comment was only to give one interesting (to me) experiment with fox behavior as one example of a large sociobiological body of evidence demonstrating changing environments (whether by a human or non human — it’s all nature) can select for behavioral traits which are inheritable and which will persist depending on subsequent reproductive success.
I have never understood the animosity evolution by natural selection brings out in people. To me it has excellent explanatory power, growing numbers of “transitional” fossils, the universal commonality of DNA in all species, and some predictive power (you’ll never find rabbits in the Pleistocene)— the difficulty, of course, for experimenting is evolution acting over geologic time, certainly for new species creation. Anyway, it doesn’t affect the price of apples, and if something better comes along with better explanatory and predictive power I will toss out Darwin.
As an atheist for almost fifty years, I would never accept a nullity as an explanation for anything. Let’s face it, if you are Christian, you parents were probably Christian. If you were born of Pakistani parents, probably Muslim. If you were born on a remote pacific island, you might worship the great Jojohone of the Mariana’s trench, who like most of them is a vengeful, angry and very jealous god. Choose wisely.
Reply
bmatkin
| #
I have no idea where you’re going with your rant. You made no effort to justify your silly fox story.
The problem with both Atheism and Evolution is both have no answer for the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A bridge is far less complicated than a life form. Think about that for a while.
Reply
Bertie MacBeetle.
| #
Allahu Akbar.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Rad1
I have never understood the animosity evolution by natural selection brings out in people.
JMcG:
Possibly this animosity is a consequence of human evolution itself:
Human Evolution and the Emergence of the Subconscious
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17527
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
MattH
| #
Evolution wobbles a foundation of a house of cards.
Reply
She Blinded me with Science
| #
Lots of massive disconnect between the science based folks and the God based folks. The science based types just cringe at the mention of God. The God based folks try to fit God into the world that they perceive.
To get a better grasp of how things really are in theory at least requires a great deal of research, observations, experiments, intuition, logic, reason and discovery.
I cannot accept that a big bang billions of years ago created what now appears to be. There are no odds in existence that support the theory of the big bang at all.
Yet science rigorously defends this alleged event.
To understand why requires keen detective skills. The individual can observe for example that the high level politicians, celebrities, corporations, athletes and worlds richest families often display occult symbols and gestures. Almost always demonstrative of the 666 symbol and the demonic symbology of Satan, Lucifer, Horus, Moloch, etc. So many corporate logos display the six sided hexogram or 666 symbols. So many celebrities cover an eye or flash the OK (666) symbol or the devil horns hand gesture. Look further and discover these same people involved with human trafficking, pedophilia, torture and the consumption of adrenachrome.
Ask yourselves a simple question. How does one become a billionaire? How does one achieve fame? How does one get to be a Politician?
The average person does not ever become a billionaire. You could be a brain surgeon married to another brain surgeon, have mad success in real estate, the stock market and even a lucrative side business, save all your money and live a spartan lifestyle and still be lucky by age 75 to have a net worth of say even 10 million dollars combined. That about as good as it gets for anyone.
Anyone except those that I mentioned above. How do they do it? What kind of club are they in? What exactly is required to rise up and become a Politician, a celebrity or person worth over say 10 million dollars?
Just for a moment you hardened hearts. Just for a moment let yourself accept that God and Satan exist.
The bible claims that Satan is the ruler of the earth. Is that not what we see? For mankind this earth is not a paradise. It is a purpose built sorting system to see what each individual is really made of. Perhaps God needs Satan to corrupt the souls of the corruptible.
If the idea of Satan is so ridiculous then how can all the demonic symbology, the occult and deviant behavior that goes against the teachings of God be so common place at the highest levels of society?
Why the separation of Church and State? Why the proliferation of gender dysphoria and LGBT in the media? What about Cern in Switerland? What is that all about? Why again all the occult symbology?
A big bang theory supports the theory of an infinite universe and space with a globe. That leaves out God as the creator. That alone creates doubt amongst the people that God exists. That is all that is required. Doubt. If one doubts that God exists and turns to science for the answers they seek then Satan has fulfilled his job of corrupting the corruptible. Game over.
But the individual can do their own experiments to ascertain that the earth is a globe or not. If not a globe (and massive amounts of information certainly support this idea) then science is lying. Why would they lie?
They lie because just like the celebrities, billionaires and Politicians, they have sold their souls to Satan. And that is why they are at the level that they are at. The scientist is not going to ever get funding, sponsorship or be tenured if they do not follow the rules of the game. Same for the Politician, Billionaire, Celebrity or anyone else. Hide God and serve Satan. That is the game.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi She … ,
You wrote: “The average person does not ever become a billionaire. You could be a brain surgeon married to another brain surgeon, have mad success in real estate, the stock market and even a lucrative side business, save all your money and live a spartan lifestyle and still be lucky by age 75 to have a net worth of say even 10 million dollars combined. That about as good as it gets for anyone.”
Have you ever read the autobiography by R. G. LeTourneau—Mover of Men and Mountains??? Or any of the biographies about the brothers Wright who had a bicycle shop before they spent two years failing and decided they had to measure the fundamental data themselves so they could design, construct, and learn to fly the first heavier than air, self-powered (not a glider) airplane. No, they did not become even millionaires. But most average person can appreciate what another person could do it they actually made the effort of actually doing something.
My daughter gave me this Estonian proverb: “The work will teach you how to do it.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
She Blinded me with Science
| #
Thanks for replying Jerry. Not really sure why you chose the paragraph that you did to quote from? My main point is that there is some sort of agreement, pact or soul selling as it were that separates those that influence humanity from the rest of us. Some sort of game that the owners and controllers of this earthly realm play that keeps all of us slaves. Some sort of game that hides God and and corrupts souls. Evolution is one of their favorite tools. The Globe too. And popular culture as well.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi She,
Thank you for your response. For now you have flipped my understanding of the long comment you had written 180 degrees. But as a SCIENTIST I am never sure of WHAT IS; I am only sure of WHAT ISN’T. Hence the purpose of the essay.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
lloyd
| #
Darwin pointed out one truth. Environment, especially changes in such, can affect the development of a species. When Man entered the environment, we changed it by killing off certain species, which led others to fill the niche. A case in point is the Coyote, which took over part of the Wolf niche when we killed them as a threat to livestock. The Coyote is now in urban L.A. We can argue what started it all until the cows come home. However, there was a First Cause, and species come and go, adapt when possible over millions of years. Or they die out.
Reply
Kanberra Jones
| #
That’s a whole lot of assumptions, starting at this world being here for more than several thousands of years let alone millions or billions. Nobody really knows. But science sure tries to persuade us all just how old it all is and how small we really are. I wonder why that is?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lloyd,
“The Coyote is now in urban L.A.” How do you know that ‘the Coyote’ hasn’t been in L.A continuously before and since humans occupied L.A.???
In what must be accepted as Ancient writing (Job 38) I read: “Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? … Etc. Etc. ETC.””
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Oldavid
| #
G’day, Jerry.
I’m glad you have, ever so cautiously, rattled this (mind) cage. I tried to raise this question (perhaps with more bravado than diplomacy) a few years ago. I didn’t excite a discussion; something more like a frantic fury that very smartly had my comments removed or blocked.
Anyhow, for the commentators above who like to create and preserve the notion that the religion of scientism is the one and only arbiter of “truth” I offer the following for consideration. The frantics of scientism are well represented in the comments below the article:
Real Philosophy Is Science
https://wmbriggs.com/post/19075/
If you think it’s a good idea and you know how to “have a good day” you should give it a go yourself.
Kind regards,
David Marwick
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David.
Now that I speed read the 72 comments your article generated I will need to reread your essay for the whole essay and comments were something I never expected to read as late as 2016.
I could have missed it but a BELIEVE no mentioned Genesis 1:28 (NIV)
“God blessed them and said to them. “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” And whether by Believers in the Creator God and His Son and The Holy Spirt or by Non-Believers in this illogical Three in One, I believe HUMANS have basically accomplished the task assigned to them by this Creator God of the HOLY BIBLE. A very old writing about the Natural World we still SEE.
I have one question: Did you watch the Video? Do you guess if any of the other commenters actually watched the video? For no one has yet commented about it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Oldavid
| #
Yair, I saw the video, Jerry. It was no surprise to me who had been born into a long succession of farmers. I have often remarked that it is very disconcerting and humiliating how similar God made these animals to us yoomans. No, I don’t do Bible bashing.
My little essay has been “improved” since that publication, but I thought that in this context the host’s and commenters’ gripes would be pertinent.
Have a good day yourself, David
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
I place this comment where I am doing because I don’t like short lines. But now I see there is a second reason. I have gone back to your first comment in which you wrote: “I didn’t excite a discussion;” And I came here this morning to ask: Do you believe we (you and I and any else who really wants a discussion instead of an argument can join us???
If it was not for Agassiz’s writing their comments about their experiences during this first assignment I would never have known how he taught. If it was not for Lane Cooper, a professor of English language, I would never have known how he taught. Now, I also know that Cooper’s book had only been checked of a teaching college’s library less than 5 times during the 5 or so times during 5 decades.
And that is where our discussion should begin because I an reasonably sure you and other readers here at PSI are not familiar with how Agassiz taught. And how he taught begins with that he knew more than his students. Therefore, he could evaluate that which they claimed to have seen or not seen.
So, I ask are you game for a discussion where I am the teacher and you are the student. For I have read what you wrote and it seems very evident that you have not seen what I know I have seen. And I, as a teacher, know I can learn from an OLD Student because this OLD (my guess) had a lot of experiences I haven’t had. And I agree with Einstein who is said to have stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.” And the experience of farming is where many people a century or two began their experiences;
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Oldavid
| #
Dump Ol’bert Einstein, Jerry, he can’t even plagiarise a good saying.
The proper saying from a Pommy sage (I forget his name) is: “Experience is the school of mankind and a fool will learn at no other”.
Your properly programmed shop assistant’s mantra of “have a good day” rather reminds me of something my grandfather said to me almost 70 years ago: “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re blardy gone”. He had grown up in the very harsh and demanding environment of the Australian bush underfoot and the agents of the Crown Corporation overhead. I can’t help comparing his (mostly) physical challenges to the cultural challenges of today.
“Have a good day?” by just ignoring what’s around, perhaps?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
“Dump Ol’bert Einstein, Jerry, he can’t even plagiarise a good saying.” It seems you do not desire to have a discussion. You to much enjoy to ‘fault find’!
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” (Einstein). I question to whom is he referring that has hidden his/her sources. My answer is HIMSELF because that is the only person that he has personal knowledge (EXPERIENCE) of what has gone on in anyone’s BRAIN.
In my brief essay which should be the focus of our discussion I wrote: “And based upon these observations made at different times and their basic understanding of astronomy they concluded that his idea seemed to be valid because the light of the star was bent that amount that Einstein’s theory predicted it should.”
I wrote this KNOWING that it was common knowledge that astronomers had observed that we see the sun rising from behind the eastern horizon before it theoretically (based on their observation at later times of the day) who have long understood (explained) that earth’s variable density atmosphere refracts (bends) the solar radiation and how much the light is bent. So he knew (understood) that the sun must have an atmosphere similar to the earth and therefore the light of the star must be bent a similar amount. Now a fact is I have no idea of what Einstein knew or was reasoning when he proposed that the force of gravity could bend light. But is it coincidence that he probably predicted that amount of the possible bending on the basis of what had been observed and reasoned by the astronomers who observed the sun rising before it theoretically should.
Have a good day, Jerry. (Because I am sincerely wishing you a good day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
For any discussion to take place there needs to be something (a focus) to discuss.
I will allow R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966) from his book’s 2nd chapter to provide the focus (2+ pages). And if one is not willing to first read these 2+ pages of information, there can be no discussion.
“Ozone … no modern account of weather is complete without some attention to the so-called ‘ozone layer’. quite one of the most curious features. I use the term ‘so-called’ because the ozone in the air, even where it is most concentrated, accounts for only a few parts per million so that in the ozone layer the air is still much the same mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide that we have in the troposphere, but the minute quantity of ozone is all important.
The occurrence of ozone gas depends upon photochemical reactions of some complexity. There are three forms of oxygen: the ordinary oxygen we breathe has molecules each of two atoms, O2; ozone has molecules of three atoms, O3; and the single atomic form may also exist, O. Now O2 will absorb ultraviolet light of sufficiently short wave length and split into two separate atoms, O + O. Then O2 and O being present together very readily combine to form O3 while O3 itself is also dissociated by ultraviolet radiation to reform O and O2. There are other possible reactions, for two oxygen atoms may meet and combine once more to O2, or O and O3 may meet to form two molecules of O2–and all these reactions go on simultaneously depending on the abundance of the participants and upon the availability of the ultraviolet radiation. The basic theory of chemical and photochemical reactions of the kind is reasonably well known and it therefore possible to calculate with some confidence how much O3 and O should be present in photochemical equilibrium in different circumstances and at different heights; but the calculations do not give answers which accord with the observations from the atmosphere. They account very well for the fact that ozone does occur at the upper level where it is found and in much the right concentration bu they do not account for the ozone which is found also in parts of the atmosphere where it could not be produced photochemically. At first sight the result is paradoxical but the explanation came rather readily. There was little reason to doubt the photochemical theory and therefore one looked for the effects of the motion of the air in conveying ozone-rich air into other regions.
By general subsidence of the air or by turbulent mixing, ozone may be brought downwards into the region where very little ultraviolet light can penetrate and there is then nothing to disrupt the gas. Ozone is such a good absorber that only a very small amount is needed to cut off the solar spectrum at the short-wave end (beyond about 3000A).which the result that if some of the ozone formed at heights above 40 kilometers can sink below 30 kilometers it will be completely protected and, as confirm, may survive for several months. Then again, if ozone formed in the sunlit regions of the atmosphere can be carried by the winds into latitudes where there is little sunshine, in the extreme case into the darkness of winter near the poles, it may accumulate for months without being destroyed. Destruction does, however, come about quite quickly by chemical reactions whenever ozone comes into the troposphere and encounters various pollutants. To sum up the position, we may say that ozone storage occurs predominantly in the stratosphere below 30 kilometers especially during the winter and at higher latitudes, whereas ozone production is mainly above 40 kilometers during the summer and at lower latitudes. It is the efficiency of the storage out of reach of ultraviolet radiation which mainly determines the distribution at any one time.
The immediate practical importance of ozone lies in its effectiveness in filtering ultraviolet from the sunshine. Without this protective screen life on earth would presumably evolved differently to provide self-protection from the rays which are damaging many tissues. The absorbed untraviolet represents a significant part of the energy of the sunshine, perhaps 6 per cent, and accounts for the high temperature of the ozone layer. To the meteorologist the importance of ozone also lies in its value as a tracer of air motions and our ideas about the circulation of the air in the stratosphere from one part of the world to another owe a good deal to the need to explain how the ozone finds its way into the polar regions in the winter and spring and how the amount of ozone overhead varies with the synoptic weather conditions. The way in which motions near the ground and in the higher stratosphere are linked together is exemplified by there being much more ozone over depressions than over anticyclones.
The measurement of the total amount of ozone overhead at any time is a skilled observation using a spectrophotometer which measures, in effect, the amount of absorption in a line of the solar spectrum chosen as one which ozone absorbs well but not too well. … There us indeed a world network of ozone-measuring stations–about sixty in all–organized largely by the International Ozone Commission, the observations being collected centrally and published by the Canadians authorities as a voluntary contribution to world science.”
I remind a reader that this was written in 1966 and Sutcliffe claimed he was writing for a general reader. So my first question to begin a discussion is: what do no not understand?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Oldavid
| #
Well, Jerry, I do not understand why you’re going on about ozone. I am reasonably acquainted with the equilibrium between O<> O2<> O3. I do not agree with the implication that O3 is only produced by UV in the upper atmosphere. Large amounts of O3 is produced by lightening and much smaller amounts produced in vigorously or violently splashing water. The “smell” of lightening is largely the “smell” of O3 and some NOx and other peroxides. There are a number of domestic and commercial ozone generators on the market some of which use UV light and others use electric spark. I am also aware of the role of monatomic oxygen in the immune system defence against invading pathogens etc.
Does all this have any direct reference to the malicious speculations of “Darwinists”?
You can presume to be my teacher if you like but that doesn’t mean that I will uncritically accept everything you say.
A discussion on this site is a bit bothersome for me as I don’t get notification of replies and the topic will inevitably disappear into P.S. archives as new topics are added. I am not a computer wizz, in fact, I had not seen a computer up close until I was about 60 years old.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David,
I asked what is not to understand? My answer is in reference to “There us indeed a world network of ozone-measuring stations–about sixty in all–organized largely by the International Ozone Commission, the observations being collected centrally and published by the Canadians authorities as a voluntary contribution to world science.” How is it I have never read elsewhere about this ozone data???
My answer is: The International Atmospheric Sounding Project whose data can be accessed via the University of Wyoming.
Have any of you PSI Readers looked at any of this data this PAST WEEK. I have, but only at a very small portion of that which is available. Lots and lots of numbers which I consider is best first studied by scanning one week of data at one location with that that week of previous years. And it is not hard to see that sometimes one year’s data can be very different from that of an adjacent year. Which should challenge one to ask: Why is this???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ol David.
First I finally saw this. I have a bit of wisdom which a consider an original paraphrase of what I learned from how Louis Agassiz taught and some of his students learned from his first assignment for them.
The Most Obvious Is Most Difficult To See!!! (JK)
And I prove its TRUTH day after day.
You asked: Does all this have any direct reference to the malicious speculations of “Darwinists”?
In my graduate school studies I took a course in chemical kinetics where I was taught that most gas phase chemical reactions were the result of collisions between two gaseous particles and we had learned that the oxygen atom is one of the most reactive of the ozone system which Sutcliffe described. And I have read that is how the reaction between an oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom occurred.
And when I began teaching as a chemistry instructor I had to teach introductory chemistry students about the “ozone hole” of Antarctic Stratosphere and the ‘greenhouse effect’ of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
So I know that historically Dobson learned that any reaction involving oxygen atoms had to occur in the very improbable, near instantaneous three particle collision because simple collision of an oxygen atom and an oxygen molecules resulted in the three oxygen particle which was so energetic that it immediately dissociated into the two particles which had just collided with the emission of the photon which had dissociated the oxygen molecule in the first place.
Which explains the observation that there are few to no ozone molecules in the less dense atmosphere above the Stratosphere and the necessary ultraviolet photons are not removed from the solar spectrum until the more dense atmosphere of the Stratosphere.
One should ask: Why is the third particle (whether nitrogen molecule, oxygen molecule, or carbon dioxide molecule) needed. The simple answer to carry away the excess energy (which dissociates the energetic ozone molecule) as the increased kinetic energy of this third particle.(Conservation of Energy), thus warming the Stratosphere’s gaseous environment.
And I know that Dobson and the other atmospheric scientists denied that ozone could be carried down from the Stratosphere by a Subsiding Atmosphere.
Now I could go on reviewing the atmospheric system of the Antarctic but I will give you and other readers a chance to repond to this possibly new information.
Have a good day, Jerry. I guess I maybe should be closing with; God Is Good, Jerry
Reply
Arteleia
| #
My mind explodes with incredulity that anyone can believe that the cycle of life just happened on its own without a designer, without a creator. WHAT BLIND Faith those who disbelieve in God have. Their BLIND faith in our existence having come about without a God of creativity, of love and of truth just shows their ignorance! In the same way, instead of working WITH nature, they work against it with GM foods, with toxic farming, with GM jabs, unleashing GM spikes on bat viruses and spreading them and more variants around the world. THE reason that people do not wish to believe in God is because they cannot bear that God is superior to them and because they have zero integrity. They have zero integrity because of SIN. Atheists make the WORST scientists, they are the scientists who do HARM to our world and to life in the world and they are the scientists who DECEIVE.
We know that by our very nature, we have not existed in eternity, God by His very nature has always existed and will always exist.
Reply
Sonny
| #
When it comes to understanding evolution I found “Ancestors tale” by Richard Dawkins the perfect book – which I recommend to anyone regardless of beliefs.
Reply
Oldavid
| #
G’donya, Sonny.
Please supply a mechanism by which disorder turns itself into order.
“It evolved” is not an explanation, even though the likes of Attenborough and Dawkins are well rewarded for relentlessly saying so.
I can only guess how long it might be before I am consigned to the “not acceptable” bucket again and be referred for “psychological evaluation and re-education”.
Kind regards.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Oldavid:
supply a mechanism by which disorder turns itself into order
James:
The temporary existence/persistence of any lifeform produces a 9 to 1 increase in NET entropy over it’s lifespan. So, there is no violation (contradiction to) of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The mistake that people make (a mistake I think you are making here, in my opinion) is to look only at the lifeform itself in isolation and to thereby fail to take into account all the other lifeforms (order) that it consumed and turned into waste (disorder) over its lifespan. There is no violation of the 2nd law.
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Oldavid
| #
Well, James McGenius,
we can’t talk about metaphysical things like life, truth and volition without getting into the nature of metaphysics which I am not prepared to do at the moment and at this stage of the “discussion”.
You’re correct in saying that there’s no violation of the 2nd law but you seem to be slyly implying that order in one system can create itself by “borrowing” energy from another system. Order and energy are somewhat related but neither one can, or does, spontaneously produce the other.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I may actually be more in agreement than you realize. For example, I do not think evolution should be taught to high school children because it brings too many irresolvable psychological problems/issues. The science of evolution unavoidably interrupts belief. And belief is more intrinsic to our success, happiness and survival than is anything else.
For me this insight came from my comprehension of human evolution itself.
Kind of along these lines, check this out:
The religion that science has become and the realization of vortice plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-religion-that-science-has-become-and-the-realization-of-vortice-plasma-ehrkj3
Regards
James McGinn (AKA James McGenius)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I almost believed a video about a Kansas tornado. But fortunately for me, I finally checked it out and found that portions of it are clearly from a movie and somebody else did not get to point this out to me.
Given an example like this, it understandable how some will not accept anything as being real (an actual observation). I am not referring to you here in case you consider this possibility.
I do ask you, have you seen a tornado in action or the direct evidence of its action? Correctly I should say I have seen the just before and the just after but I did not directly see the tornado in action for I was on my cell phone, about 6 miles away, talking to my wife when she ‘heard’ something and headed to the basement. What she heard was my newly applied sheet metal roof being torn from a good good portion my attached garage’s roof, lifted intact over some 20-30ft evergreen trees and dropped intact over a fence with strong steel fence posts which did bent it a bit. Supportive observation was about 50 feet west of the garage a single branch of a tree had been broken and 20 so feet to the SE of the garage was a flowering apple tree with the previous season quarter sized apples laying all over the street. No damage to this tree.
The reason I was talking to my wife was that I saw the ‘sick green’ clouds which I associated with wind storms (straight line thought) in eastern South Dakota which moved significant (maybe 30-40 miles causing destruction along it path. A ordinary surface layer Jet Stream. And I had called her to tell her to look at the sky when this tiny tornado did not seem to even literally touch the ground. Of course, funnels which to not reach the ground are more common than those which do.
I share this with you because your explanation of the vortex known as a tornado should include this ‘sick green’ color of the cloud base.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other PSI Readers,
“I may actually be more in agreement than you realize.” Works both ways. I was sent a video of a Kanas tornado. YOUR THING which I would never try to explain that which I see and therefore accept as Fact (TRUTH).
The basic problem with those whose world is reason, instead of what they can simply see, is that they refuse to accept there are some observed facts that other common people can see.
If I continue to write what I write, their problem is not my problem. If I don’t write what I write, That IS My PROBLEM!!!
And James continue to write about tournedos your understanding of them for I doubt there are many who hare trying to use hydrogen bonding ideas and electrostatic dipole moments of water molecules as any fundamental explanation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JFK
| #
The chances of life surviving are disproportionally small by many orders of magnitude compared to life getting extinct. No matter what the environment is or the type of life you deal with. Death is easy, natural, with few requirements. Life is hard to maintain, unnatural, with too many requirements. Chaos and destruction is the natural state of the universe.
When talking about life appearing by itself out of nothing and producing new lifeforms and also creating entire ecosystems, then we are in an even harder reality. This was never observed in nature and could never be reproduced in lab experiments. So, this is not science.
All the above is verified every day by experience. The living species on earth get extinct with rates that are breathtaking, while new species have never appeared. On top of that, all species survive in the context of an ecosystem. And the ecosystem itself seems collapsing into nothing every day.
Not to mention that Earth is the friendliest place for life in the universe and there is no way for the existing lifeforms to have been evolved elsewhere and transported here later. So, if this is happening on Earth, you can imagine what are the chances of life elsewhere in the deadly universe…
The scientific data is clear. Everything around us dies off. Entire species, the ecosystem itself, our sun, our planet’s magnetic field and its atmosphere. Our time is running out and we will all be dead at some point, not so far away in time. And it is pretty clear by now, why this happens and that it is inescapable.
With the current rate of deterioration –or even with one tenth of that for that matter–, evolution of any lifeform is a laughable idea. In the casino of death, where we live, life always loses. Given enough time, life will not appear, but it will certainly disappear, if there was any to begin with…
And all this without getting into the genetics, biochemistry, information theory, and what is required for a first living cell to appear… This is another mission-impossible to deal with…
And also, without getting into the amount of time evolution supposedly requires, and if that time is truly available for it in the natural world…
And also, without getting into what it takes to form a symbiotic ecosystem like our own, while its species are dying off the one after the other… And without going into the WHY the species die off, which is another funny story that disproves evolution.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JFK,
Great Comment!!! However, I need one thing to be clarified. “This was never observed in nature and could never be reproduced in lab experiments. So, this is not science.” Is “this is not science” in reference to “lab experiments”?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JFK
| #
I refer to the whole behavior of evolutionists.
Science examines the data and revises its theories and models.
Evolutionists on the other hand try to make reality conform to their beliefs.
They do their experiments (although that was only done in the past… nowadays they just make up stories…), they fail miserably to prove their point, but that does not make them change anything in their ideas and opinions.
They view 1000 facts that disprove evolution, but they ignore them in favour of some old or new fairytale.
They still throw the same invalid arguments, they still write the same textbooks containing fake data, and they continue to believe and preach their faith as a “science”.
On top of that, evolutionists have a track record when it comes to scientific hoaxes.
Overall, science and evolution don’t go together.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JFK,
You concluded: “Overall, science and evolution don’t go together.” I conclude (believe) that the Jewish and then Christian Religions do go together!!! Hence, the purpose of this article was to correct this misbelief.
Again, I repeat that the ideas of SCIENCE are not CERTAIN (THE TRUTH) just as my belief in the Creator God is not CERTAIN. That is why Christians are honestly termed to be BELIEVERS.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Graeme McMillan
| #
The simple answer as to why birds incubate their eggs is that if they didn’t the species would not survive.
Why eggs and not live offspring? Again a simple answer. It has been a successful adaptation.
Otherwise – no birds. As we know them.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ol David, James, and other PSI Readers,
Ecclesiastes 4: 9-12 (NIV). Two are better than one because they have good return for their work. If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm along? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”
I have had friends but none with my passion about SCIENCE and the refuting of wrong scientific ideas.
Ecclesiastes 11: 1-6 (NIV). Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again. Give portions to seven, yes to eight, for you do not know what disaster may come upon the land. If clouds are full of water, they pour rain upon the earth. Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where it falls, there will it lie. Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. Sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let not your hands be idle, for you do not know which will succeed, whether this or that, or whether both will do equally well.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ol David,
Despite the fact that I had to scroll back to find this essay, I know you and I can keep this discussion going and I am quite certain no one will prevent you from continuing to comment. Only you can do that. For each morning I will bring you back here if you keep watching for recent comments.
The history of your long life is fact, as is mine. And we now both know that our lives began on a POOR farm on which our fathers struggled to provide a LIVING FOR HIS FAMILY. Which every man should do for himself and his family, regardless on which continent one lives.
And I believe you can accept that each human has been created for some special purpose of their life. Be it pitching manure or making beds or cooking or picking up garbage or inventing the first airplane or inventing a mainframe computer or inventing the first personal computer and the internet which both you and I have trouble using to near their fullest potentials for GOOD.
Are you familiar with this quote which has been attributed to Einstein? “Everyone should be respected as an individual but no one idolized.” Because I respect certain people of significant achievements based upon their ‘wisdom’, it might seem I consider them to be gods and not a human like everybody else. But I know I cannot control what these other people conclude.
One of my ‘heroes’ is Richard Feynman, a very transparent and honest SCIENTIST. And I don’t know how familiar PSI Readers are with this person or of the burden that he knew he placed on his shoulders by doing his SCIENCE.
So given THESE PRESENT TIMES I repeat a Preface he wrote which was published after he had died. The title of the book which he wrote was “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” A question his dying first wife asked him.
“When I was younger, I thought science would make good things for everybody. It was obviously useful; it was good. During the war I worked on the atomic bomb. This result of science was obviously a very serious matter: it represented the destruction of people.
After the war I was very worried about the bomb. I didn’t know that the future was going to look like, and I certainly wasn’t anywhere near sure that we could last until now [1988]. Therefore one question was—is there some evil involved in science?
Put another way—what is the value of the science I had dedicated myself to—the thing I loved—when I saw what terrible things it could do? It was a question I had to answer.
“The Value of Science” is a kind of report, if you will, on many of the thoughts that came to me when I tried to answer that question.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Hi Ol David,
| #
Hi Ol David,
I had written: “I know you and I can keep this discussion going and I am quite certain no one will prevent you from continuing to comment. Only you can do that. For each morning I will bring you back here if you keep watching for recent comments.” And I know I have failed to do what I claimed I would do.
So this comment is an attempt to correct my mistake (failure).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply