Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

As such, I am voting that I think both statements are false.

Fascinating. I agree fully with what you wrote, and yet I was tempted to vote "both are true," as I changed (in my head) the literal words of the choices into what I think the OP probably should have written, to be more precise

mmm.

They are both theories, are they not? neither is fact, or at least, neither is a working model (like, for example, the fact we have two legs is).

I do not believe man caused global warming. I do believe we have committed an immeasurable amount of damage to this planet and have, with out a shadow of a doubt, contributed to it.

I do believe, to some degree, in the theory of evolution.

I think I would also have to say that both statements are false.

To answer someones question earlier, if global warming is the height of evolution, there is no height to evolution. That would infer there was a better and a worse. I don't believe for one second that any species on this planet is remotely better off that the others.

Well, if global warming continues (no matter who's causing it) we're all going to begin to evolve back to our common ancestor at an accelerated rate.

Anyway I saw that on a sci fi movie and it sure looked convincing to me. I'm planting some banana trees in my back yard so I'll be prepared when you come swinging through my area.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Well, if global warming continues (no matter who's causing it) we're all going to begin to evolve back to our common ancestor at an accelerated rate.

Aw crap! You mean this? http://manhattaninfidel.com/__onecli...flintstone.jpg

Now you know that I love you guys along with all of my fellow men. BUT (figured I'd say it since you were expecting it), I am so often disappointed with the lack of reasoned informed and logical thinking by what seems like so many of my fellow men. Good example, the good old 'coelacanth' a lobe finned fish claimed to have gone extinct 65 or more million years ago until in 1938 some fishermen off the east coast of South Africa caught one no doubt by accident and shazaam it is the same as the fossilized ones, now come on fellas PUHLEEEZ, you are going along with the pitiful rushed and pathetic explaination that for some 'unknown unexplainable and mysterious' reason that the poor old coelacanth just somehow fell off of the 'evolutionary ladder' for 65 million years? If that isn't blind dogmatic cultic faith then I don't know what is. How about all of the insects that are found preserved in amber and are the same today. Them too? Come on man, it's a pitiful old bamboozling scam. Even so, I will still love you (probly though rather reluctantly).

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Now you know that I love you guys along with all of my fellow men. BUT (figured I'd say it since you were expecting it), I am so often disappointed with the lack of reasoned informed and logical thinking by what seems like so many of my fellow men. Good example, the good old 'coelacanth' a lobe finned fish claimed to have gone extinct 65 or more million years ago until in 1938 some fishermen off the east coast of South Africa caught one no doubt by accident and shazaam it is the same as the fossilized ones, now come on fellas PUHLEEEZ, you are going along with the pitiful rushed and pathetic explaination that for some 'unknown unexplainable and mysterious' reason that the poor old coelacanth just somehow fell off of the 'evolutionary ladder' for 65 million years? If that isn't blind dogmatic cultic faith then I don't know what is. How about all of the insects that are found preserved in amber and are the same today. Them too? Come on man, it's a pitiful old bamboozling scam. Even so, I will still love you (probly though rather reluctantly).

Well if you mean evolution science is in trouble because of your examples I'm afraid your acting like the guy who looks at a probability problem with about 95% confidence and he seizes on the other 5% to debunk the whole enchilada.

Since you obviously haven't even begun to look into it, I'll go ahead and tell you that that isn't even the beginning of getting started with it. Surely you didn't think that those were in any way the bulk of the evidence, did you? Come on man.

sorry but this post isn't the proper venue to get into another of these arguments about evolution. besides its a non sequitur because you have your beliefs and I have mine and neither will change right?

I think that there are just too many variables to ever come up with any definate answer on either of these topics. Not to mention that I think both of these are somewhat backwards. I didn't really look at where everyone else was living but where I'm at (Portland,Or) things have been getting cooler over the last few years. And I'm not so sure that we ever really evolved but more like de-volved and I say this based on how stupid I think people have become. Do we really need to know what John and Kate are doing ever single minute of their day. How many "reality" shows does there need to be on the tube at any one given time. Anyway. This post could go on forever between scientific facts and figures on both sides mixed in with whatever religous "stuff" someone wants to throw in(no offense to any of the religous members of the forum I just have my own beliefs that don't involve any sort of higher power).
I'll just end with that.

Michael

I, too, found the wording of the second part of statement B a little odd. While the first part of B represents one of the general principles of evolutionary descent, the second part does not. Rather, it seems to take one side in what is an ongoing discussion.

The problem is that at that early stage of life's development, there probably weren't individual organisms as we think of them today. Instead, there were something akin to "genetic pools" where the process of sharing genes was likely accomplished via horizontal gene transfer (see the section "Importance in evolution").

In a nutshell, it's generally accepted by biologists that all life descended from a Last Universal Ancestor. However, that ancestor may well have been more like "a discrete genetic pool". In terms of whether or not the average layperson would believe in such things at all, the difference between whether it was an individual organism (didn't really exist back then) or a discrete genetic pool is utterly insignificant, imo.


Therefore, a suggestion:

It might be most useful to read statement B as including whatever nuances it would need in order to fit with current evolutionary theory. Only then would any meaningful correlation between belief in the two statements be revealed.


[Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, so the above just comes from my vague understanding of the relevant research/ideas.]