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.

@Jym In the truest sense of a dice roll, there only being 6 sides, the same has been suggested for biology

Pretty sure that if you trow a dice for several billion years it's going to change shape

Is it billions? I don't remember English numbers<:GWjiangoOmegaLUL:389904150886088723>

Yes.

One could almost argue that the species present in an ecological system are a direct reflection of the conditions, and they are destined to fill a set of niches with certain characteristics in an emergent way

@MountainMan nigga you got school tomorrow?

No.

Holidays this week.

There could be a time when you might be able to set climate variables in a calulator, and have it spit out all the possible creatures that would exist there

@Fitzydog

"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"

Is the part I was referring too about adaptation and randomness. That lack of randomness is what we call drive. Also I was kinda thinking about a 100,000 sided die not a D6. Hence the long periods it takes to roll a crit.

@MountainMan ok then carry on

<:pepe_smile:378719407977005068>

@Ondsinet i think I got into biotech class

ya yeet