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

@Jym Right, but the classical Darwinian idea is that the adaptations are unique, and unlimited

i.e. with enough time, anything is possible

Hi @MountainMan nice

Oh and a climate variable wouldn't really give you the results you suggest. Genes drive for the gene's success the organism is just a phenotype. They can *accidentally* do so like a gene that creates more viable gametes. At the level of gene as selector Darwin is correct. It's just that Darwin didn't know anything about genetics because it did not exist yet.

🤦 Nevermind dude

>adaptions are unique.
Is that what he sais? I havent read his book, nor studied much about him. I Only know that he’s the father if evolutenary science n shit etc.

But Uhh

Adaptions aren’t unique as far as I’ce been teached

It's what has been *assumed*

Like, any sort of imaginary creature you can come up with, you could conceive of an environmental drive that would have created it

Ahh okay

But all of this is moot, because I was never arguing one way or the other in the first place

Yeah. Devils advocate.

Just trying to give context to the people saying "REEE!! They're creationists who hate Darwin!!"

Yeah. I don’t see anything wrong with the whole thing.

Even Bret Weinstein has broached this topic a bit

Not criticizing Darwins theory is the bad part. He didn’t get everything right, because he couldnt know the stuff we know now.