"... the earth is definitely expanding, but the best way to sell it is simply as a mechanism for continental drift (i.e., plate tectonics.) When you say (as I used to say) plate tectonics is wrong, people then think you are saying continents don't move or seafloor spreading doesn't occur, etc. So you immediately put those people off. By telling them, it's almost all the same ideas used in (or confiscated in) plate tectonics -- continental drift, seafloor spreading, a closed Atlantic and closed Indian -- it just provides a different mechanism for continental drift (global expansion rather than convection), I think it becomes easier to digest." -- Dennis J. McCarthy, biogeographer, Email to the Noob, March 14th 2010
McCarthy, D.J., Here Be Dragons: How the Study of Animal and Plant Distributions Revolutionized Our Views of Life and Earth, Oxford University Press, Oct 2009
Sullivan, M., 'Here Be Dragons' Right Here in North Hampton, SeacoastOnline.Com, Nov 2009
[Dennis J.] McCarthy is a scientific researcher with the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York, and he sits on the editorial board of Biogeography & Systematics. He has published numerous papers in such publications as the Journal of Geophysical Research, Der Spiegel Online (Europe's largest-selling news weekly), The Journal of Biogeography, and Notes and Queries, Oxford's journal of literary scholarship.
So yeah, he's got mad biogeography street cred. ...
"I'm pursuing a controversial view in Earth science, and I knew the secret was in biogeography," McCarthy said. "Plate [sic] tectonics is definitely correct [bigass rolleyes], but I believe one aspect of it is likely to be modified. Specifically, I knew the distributions of plants and animals would let you know if current views of the history of the Pacific are correct. If not, this would completely challenge our views of planetary science. Biogeography could be on the forefront of the next major scientific revolution — just as it has been so often in the past." ...
"I don't fit in with scientists," McCarthy said with a laugh. "I never really did."
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
40 comments:
OIM,
Read this:
Why do we find polar bears only in the Arctic and penguins only in the Antarctic? Why are marsupials found only in Australia and South America? In answering these puzzles, Dennis McCarthy tells a story that encompasses two great, insightful theories that together explain the strange patterns of life across the world--evolution and plate tectonics.... This is how Oxford U. Press describes it...
You are really a moron...
KV,
LOL @ U.
You've not the read the book you noob and you have no idea who this guy is obviously.
OIM,
I don't care who the hell is McCarthy, or whatever his views. You are citing a book and the review or the decription does not support your beamfucked bs or "expanding" Earth.
KV,
You are commenting on a book you have never read by an author you have never heard of.
OIM,
I am not commenting on the book or author. I am commenting on your morbid ignorance.
I'm ignorant because I have the book right in front of me, I know who the author is, and I know what he believes. Got it.
KV,
I know what he believes because his quotes and papers are listed on the sidebar you've never read.
OIM,
You will remain a morbidly ignorant forever. It does not matter what one believes in science. It is about irrefutable evidence, and you don't have it.
There were people who believed in Hitler too! Even a few Jews!! So, I have no use of beliefs or believers...
OIM,
Most of your sidebar quotes are selective expression of your morbidity, or less politely beamfucked brain.
KV,
Here is an email from Dennis I received a few hours ago.
"... the earth is definitely expanding, but the best way to sell it is simply as a mechanism for continental drift (i.e., plate tectonics.) When you say (as I used to say) plate tectonics is wrong, people then think you are saying continents don't move or seafloor spreading doesn't occur, etc. So you immediately put those people off.
By telling them, it's almost all the same ideas used in (or confiscated in) plate tectonics -- continental drift, seafloor spreading, a closed Atlantic and closed Indian -- it just provides a different mechanism for continental drift (global expansion rather than convection), I think it becomes easier to digest."
My emails with McCarthy suggest that he is a dyed-in-the-wool Expansion Tectonics cheerleader.
That said I have the following questions for Oils:
What is the rate of expansion?
What is the mechanism for expansion?
Where does the extra mass come from?
What is the gravity at the surface of Earth 200 mya? Is it higher or lower than the 9.8 m/s we experience today?
Is the Earth denser in this remote period?
What started the sudden growth?
How do you explain the motions of the continents as revealed by GPS tracking?
OIM,
You began with a quote from McCarthy:
…the earth is definitely expanding, but the best way to sell it…
So, McCarthy wants to sell his bs in disguise of evolution and plate tectonics. Or, wants to lie! Morbidly and cowardly lie! And, like a good liar, he tells you how to do it. You, a morbid ignorant, go along without thinking, assessing evidences, or predicting anything…
Consider these factors before buying and selling snake-oil from salesmen like McCarthy, oh, you beamfucked morbidly ignorant.
Earth, during accretion period, did accumulate the mass to a size, and there is a whole lot of science to be done to understand how the plates formed and what mechanisms put them in motion...etc.
Second, viscous fluids exhibit elastic memory; molten earth was and is probably a giant ultra viscous fluid ball that has elastic memory. That is, cracks (like a yoni) remain intact, may be forever.
Third, environ changes may isolate species and change their evolutionary course, and even make them go extinct. It is called evolution.
Finally, look at the racial history of humans, and you will see the ignorance of morbidity at the extreme. Somehow, all these different races of humans go on procreating without a hitch mixing at will. Try to fuck with a gorilla.
Explain the Chilean earthquake without plate tectonics…
Oils doesn't buy Evolution. His endorsement of McCarthy suggests that he does, however... but whatever.
Jeffery,
The rate of expansion is erratic but nevertheless measured and known.
The Earth has doubled in size in the last 200 million years.
The mechanism for expansion is called oceanic seafloor spreading, the exact same mechanism in plate tectonics.
The extra matter comes from the Sun.
Gravity was less on a smaller Earth which is why dinosaurs and giant megafauna could grow to such a large size and explains how pterosaurs could fly.
"Is the Earth denser in this remote period?"
I don't know.
"What started the sudden growth?"
Good question. What causes planets to form and grow? God?
"How do you explain the motions of the continents as revealed by GPS tracking?"
GPS measures the Earth to be growing.
"The relative motion of Hawaii and Arequipa [Peru] is 80±3 mm/yr...." -- D.E. Smith, geophysicist, et al., 1990
Jeffery,
Depends on how you define evolution.
"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008
JK,
It is not a matter of buying for OIM. It is opposing an irrefuatble evidence by armwaving and flailing by him.
By the way, anybody noticed McCarthy looks a bit like Richard Nixon? It must be that external features indicate internal genetic make up, and hence, deception and lies by him! Take that to the bank, OIM!
Jeffery,
Let me also add that I accept the so-called "evolutionary" explanation of vicariance.
KV,
The Sun generates 380 billion billion megawatts of power. Some of that is transferred to the Earth in the form of plasma. Every 8 minutes there is an electromagnetic flux transfer event between the Sun and the Earth. Thus aurorae.
OIM,
I don't care about the power. We are talking about mass. Compute that!
And, while you are at it: also compute the mass loss from the Earth as well. Provide a mas balance equation... I bet you have none, except nambi-pambi plasma bs.
And, also compute the size of the Sun, that has to be, to support such outlanding mass transfer scheme. It is beyond black hole (like a yoni)!
Finally, how come there is no evidence of wimps' stars doing the same thing to their planets they abandoned only to convert apes into man, and then take their daughters to fuck with.
KV,
Do you claim ions have no mass?
The amount of mass that reaches Earth from solar plasma is far less than the mass of the dust that falls on the surface.
Over the 200 mya span of McCarthy's supposed expansion, this dust has increased Earth's diameter by 7 mm.
Ergo: You need a new explanation, not a guess. McCarthy at least admitted that he didn't know, but gave an answer anyway involving matter being created at the cores of planets.
These results based on measurement interpretation lead us to
rejection of the Blinov hypothesis, but considering measurement itself – if we use strict statistical criteria – we cannot decide if the Earth expands or not. - Tereza Bajgarová, Jan Kostelecký, Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol.2, No.3 (139), 95-101, 2005 THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE EARTH’S EXPANSION IN THE
LIGHT OF SPACE GEODESY RESULTS
How did Earth stay in orbit over the long term while growing?
OIM,
Set up the mass balance equation for the Sun first, and then the Earth. Sun would have been exhausted long long time ago, unless it is vaginal black tube connected to other universes.
Why armwave when you can calculate? Or, you are so beamfucked that there is no brain left but only auto-response to cut and paste? Compute and you shall be enlightened.
What I find amusing about EE is the water. The oceans are 75% of the planet's surface.
Take away the area occupied by the oceans, as in cartoonist Neal Adams' version of EE. Where are the oceans? They are sitting on top of the land. In other words, there is no land. Everything on chibi-earth is aquatic. Except that they weren't.
Unless, of course, you imagine that all that water just showed up at some point.
Additionally, you can't account for gravity. If Earth was smaller, it must be much more dense.
Gravity increases on this smaller, denser Earth, and the whole "this is what allows dinosaurs to grow so large" goes away.
If Earth was less dense, then the amount of mass you have to add increases dramatically. How you do this is a mystery, considering the mass accretion model relies on solar ions, and the energy required (E=MC^2) would cook poor little Chibi-Earth to a cinder in 200 mya and the energy output of the sun is nowhere near enough to continue this growth today.
Oh, and Evolution is True.
Jeffery Keown said...
These solar ions are hydrogen. That is a word made up of two Greek words. "Water" and "becoming" or "making". Thus once life is established on a planet, giving off oxygen as an exhaust gas, there will be water formed on the earth from space as well as from outgassing of H2O (if any existed inside the crust before the oceans were formed).
This also explains the ozone holes at the poles, most of the Hydrogen ions are funnelled to the poles and then combine over them with oxygen, both creating and destroying ozone. The UV created ozone in these areas is tiny, due to the angle of incidence of light from the sun.
If we see water on a planet, it has life, as only life provides the oxygen molecules that combine with these energetic solar H ions.
As the rate of isotope decay alters with proximity to the sun, the 190 million years for the age of the oceans may not be accurate.
Quantities etc are not known but someone will calculate them? We know the sun is somewhat more variable than we have been led to believe.
Fungus -
Um... no.
Water is found in deep space, it isn't created by life, it allows life like ours to form. The remainder of your post is just as absurd.
Try again.
FF,
There was no oxygen on the Earth. It was all bound up, even today, most of the oxygen is bound up. Oxygen was a bi-product of bacterial and plant life. Learn the science, and stop falling for armwavers like OIM and freaking liars like McCarthy.
Jeffery,
"Where are the oceans? They are sitting on top of the land."
All that does is confirm that the flood covered the whole earth and was above the highest mountain peak.
"As for Egypt, then, I credit those who say it, and myself very much believe it to be the case; for I have seen that Egypt projects into the sea beyond the neighboring land, and shells are exposed to view on the mountains, and things are coated with salt, so that even the pyramids show it, and the only sandy mountain in Egypt is that which is above Memphis;" -- Herodotus, historian, ~430 B.C.
"In other words, there is no land. Everything on chibi-earth is aquatic."
"The world in the beginning was pure lake covered with tules." -- Constance G. Du Bois, anthropologist, The Mythology of the Diegueños, 1901
"When they came forth from the Earth mother, they had to pass through the ocean, which then covered the land...." -- Constance G. Du Bois, anthropologist, Ceremonies and Traditions of the Diegueño Indians, 1908
"Unless, of course, you imagine that all that water just showed up at some point."
"The sea is a tear of Saturn." -- Pythagoras, philosopher, 6th century B.C.
Which explains nothing.
There were land and aquatic lifeforms before and after your magical 200 mya mark.
The largest dinosaurs existed in South America only 65 mya. Well after your expanding earth acquired a great deal of gravity.
I'll say this... you are desperate to hang on to your nonsense.
Jeffery,
"There were land and aquatic lifeforms before and after your magical 200 mya mark."
Only in the highest mountains.
Also you are assuming the density of the Earth in the past conforms with your religious beliefs. Yet you have no idea what the density of the Earth was in the past. I'll say this... you are desperate to hang on to your nonsense.
Referring to my evidence-based conclusions as religion is a sure sign that you haven't any further proof to offer.
I have no faith in anything but evidence, thus my somewhat dismissive treatment of you and the actual religious texts you peddle as science.
I gave two scenarios re: The Density of Earth in your imaginary EE tectonics. You assumed wrongly that I was presuming knowledge of the exact value.
Either way, EE falls apart, and you can not offer sufficient evidence. This is all I ask, and you only quote religion. Perhaps, you assume that since you have all sorts of faith, that everyone does.
Wake up. Some of us enjoy concepts that work outside of your little denialist day dream.
So you posit there were only lifeforms on high mountains?
Give me an example. (You don't have one, but try.) For your information, most mountaintop fossils these days are from old sea floor that has been thrust up. Most mountain fossils are actually marine critters.
Jeffery,
You have no evidence to support a uniformitarian Earth of constant size.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that meteorites have negative mass.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that poorly dispersing taxa can magically and miraculously fly across the Pacific Ocean but are somehow unable to fly across any other ocean.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that granite can magically and miraculously convey itself into denser mantle.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that meteorites have negative mass.
I never said this. I said they don't weigh enough to account for your viewpoint.
Your misrepresentation of the words of others borders on dishonesty. The other side of the border. It's called lying.
You have no evidence to support a uniformitarian Earth of constant size.
Its called Counter Evidence to EE, and there's a ton of it lying around.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that poorly dispersing taxa can magically and miraculously fly across the Pacific Ocean but are somehow unable to fly across any other ocean.
You don't understand science, do you? The taxa do not prove the other points you are making. They are one data point among thousands of others that disprove EE.
You have no evidence to support your religious belief that granite can magically and miraculously convey itself into denser mantle.
Except that we can watch it happen.
Thanks for continuing to call my evidence "religion" its like a giant neon sign flashing "OILS IS OUT OF IDEAS"
Jeffery,
"Except that we can watch it happen."
LOL.
Next time you take a trip to the center of the Earth please take me with you.
Give me an example. (You don't have one, but try.) For your information, most mountaintop fossils these days are from old sea floor that has been thrust up. Most mountain fossils are actually marine critters.
Did you find your mountain-dwelling dinosaur? How about a enscarpment-hugging tree? Or perhaps a Jurrassic Beaver, tenaciously scrapping about for dam-building materials at cliffside?
No? Thought so...
Oh... and Evolution is true.
Next time you take a trip to the center of the Earth please take me with you.
I don't have to. We see it happening all over the place. How, exactly does EE explain this image:
Google this pic: Global_plate_motion_2008-04-17.jpg
It does not show all points moving outward in an expanding earth sort of motion... it's the exact motion predicted by plate tectonics.
You lose.
"All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations -- just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That's because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas -- not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply "walked" from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn't have to accept that many miracles." -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003
Google this pic: http://davidpratt.info/earth/subduct3.jpg
"This tomographic image alone," says Choi, "is enough to bury the subduction models."
"Therefore the thermally controlled conveyor-belt subduction model, as well as any variants or hybrid models, should be discarded because they are in fundamental contradiction with direct observation and deny the obvious." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, 2005
Truth isn't about me winning or losing Jeffery. It's about what is and what is not.
http://saweatherobserver.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-solar-superstorm-of-1859.html
Note the depletion of ozone and the formation of NO3. All caused by splitting O2 into O3 and O- which then react with the nearest reactant, usually N. The O2 is split by the protons from the Sun.
There is no excuse for scientific ignorance.
Post a Comment