Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Reading the current thread on Climate Change and previous threads on Evolution, it occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities in the two discussions.

So this poll is an unscientific way of seeing if there is a correlation of some kind. I hope everyone will read the two statements below and vote above on their position.

Statement A: Global Warming is occurring. Humans are causing it.

Statement B: Humans are descended from animals who were not human. All living things have a common ancestor.

Please vote!

I went for the last option.

Because I do not think we have enough definitive evidence to say either one either way.

At some point our interferring with nature just has to stop! Wouldn't you think that we humans could have been satisfied with killing off all those dinosaurs? But NO!! Then we had to melt all those icecaps and glaciers and now we're at it again. Or is that still?

I feel so ashamed.

Originally Posted by Bruce

At some point our interferring with nature just has to stop! Wouldn't you think that we humans could have been satisfied with killing off all those dinosaurs? But NO!! Then we had to melt all those icecaps and glaciers and now we're at it again.

Boys will be boys.

I chose B True and A False.

But I want to clarify. I do believe that global warming is occurring, but I believe it is as part of a natural cycle. That being said, I really do think that we as a species could be a whole lot nicer to our environment, regardless of the whole global warming issue.

My simple answer for the purpose of what I feel the "nature" of the question is, would be A.
However, due to the fact that these are highly complex qeustions that are so over-simplified in these answers (as they need to be, really , to make a poll out of...nto bashing the poll or thread, here), that nothing but "other" can be a really accurate/honest assesment of how I feel/what I believe the science points to.

Originally Posted by DPflaumer

I chose B True and A False.

But I want to clarify. I do believe that global warming is occurring, but I believe it is as part of a natural cycle. That being said, I really do think that we as a species could be a whole lot nicer to our environment, regardless of the whole global warming issue.

Going to have to agree with this statement 100%. I think I've said these exact words before while describing my stance on the issue.

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.]

Originally Posted by northpaw

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.]

This is what is found to be one of the obvious and glaring points, that you hear things like 'well it's something like .... ' or 'the general consensus is .... ' or 'we believe that .... '. You know why they don't just show you examples or why they show an 'artistic rendering'? Because they don't have them. They BELIEVE that stuff because it is their RELIGION. And they use Soviet style teaching methods and adhere to it and it's doctrines with the dogmatic ferver of any religious cult that you could name.