<:thronk:441701565607444482>

<:thronk:441701565607444482>

*The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”*

Nothing weird at all.

Pretty rational

All those thousands of scientists denying darwinism like...

Being skeptical is not flat out denying

There are people who don't think increased co2 in our atmosphere is a bad thing, yet still believe in climate change.

Believing in climate change doesn't really affect your attitude towards it, it's acknowledging that man made emissions are what is causing increasing global temperatures that can be irreversible

Whether you think it's good or bad doesn't negate your belief in it

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here:

There's some argument in the biology community about the origin of SOME adaptations, in the sense that they're 'random' in a very distinct direction towards the benefit of the organism, and are duplicable in other species at a rate above random chance.

Basically, in a sense, that there's almost a 'grab bag' of possibilities organisms work with that is not unlimited

But alatriste, how do we know how much humans are affecting climate change ?

Should we really be worried if we find out that only 2% of warming is caused by humans?

I'm sure we really would be worried if its 98%

but we don't know right now

I think the most accurate estimates are between 10 and 80% of warming is caused by humans.

thats a big error bar there.

Adaptations are not random. Mutations are . When a mutation has an advantage it is an adaptation. Think of it like a die roll but the roll is random (mutations) and permanent. So bad rolls basically never repeat except randomly. Out of this noise you occasionally get crit. That does not repeat randomly because it confers advantage.

Special note;

By advantage we mean an advantage for the mutation. *that does not mean an advantage for the organism or the species.*

Ok, memes aside and forget climate change, aren't you worried about the shit that's in the air? The concentration of toxic particles is so high that you can't breathe pure air not even on top of the Himalayas. All that shit comes down into the water we drink etc. Climate change seems like a secondary issue, but both sides sperg over that and forget the rest

Fuck China

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502141956.htm

@Jym I know how evolution works, I'm just going into depth here a bit

Fuck yeah, but you're gonna get diminishing returns continuing to take action in western countries.

we need to start putting pressure on china.

yeah, india, nigeria, indonesia, malaysia, and many other developing countries have issues too... but china is by far #1 per capita on basically everything bad in regards to environemtnal standards.

Probably entire countries in Europe pollute less than a single city in China

@AlephKnoll 100% is done by humans

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

not true

the climate has changed for the past 4.5 billion years

the sahara used to be green

Alright, I'm going to dip out now.

Y'all are sperging about climate science

Antarctica used to be a rainforest.

we don't know how much is caused by humans

Of all warming since 1950*

we know they have an effect, but we don't know how much

@Fitzydog

OK. But it's just that adaptations are not random, nor a grab bag. In evolutionary biology it's called 'drive'. The degree to which they are favorable adaptations that is.

*But what about the doctored NASA climate data?*

@Jym I never suggested adaptations are random.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that adaptations *COULD BE* ultimately *limited*

We’ll have to see. Problem with evolutenary science is that we always miss the main component. Time.