Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (18468)	12/15/2007 8:46:41 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36921

Yes, lots of the "holes" prove interesting in their own way. The two largest "holes" I know of wrt to biological evolution are 1) abiogenesis which is the origin of life, and not really part of evolution, and 2) a general theory on how complexity arises. For two, we know the mechanisms, but lack a satisfyingly understandable theory of how complexity arises. Perhaps that is the problem, there is not a simple nutshell explanation for complexity. Just the details of how it can occur. However, neither has any impact on the vast factual support for the theory of evolution. They are very interesting problems in their own right. Same is true for AGW. There is zero wiggle room in the physics of C02 & climate temps, and zero wiggle room regarding the source of the CO2. There is plenty of debate regarding the details and the magnitudes of expected change. People should not confuse the issues and claim that because we don't know every detail, we are ignorant of the big picture. Unfortunately, that nonsense is pretty typical of half the posters here, and rather common with any group who disbelieve science, be it climate science, smoking/cancer, the source of oil, or evolution/creation. Dingbats are Dingbats.