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: neolib who wrote (18469)	12/15/2007 9:07:44 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

"Some individuals focus on the "holes" and claim this invalidates the overall theory." No matter what the theory or any holes or no holes, It simple cannot prove that an intelligent creator was not behind it. The mentally retarded AKA neolib strain at nit of complex illogic not seeing the simple truth.

To: neolib who wrote (18469)	12/15/2007 11:25:40 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

a satisfyingly understandable theory of how complexity arises. Natural selection is an adequate theory. There are many reasons that one creature will be more likely to survive a selection than another. In many cases they will have some quality that the other lacks, and that is a measure of more complexity. It is the competition that favors complexity, in a stable world you have equilibrium and stability, but in a changing environment there is an advantage to those who happen to have more features. TP

To: neolib who wrote (18469)	12/18/2007 1:32:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36921

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. I wouldn't really call either of those a hole in evolution. The 1st is a hole in terms of not having a theory of something that proceeded evolution. The 2nd is a lack of full understanding about a much broader issue. However, neither has any impact on the vast factual support for the theory of evolution. Exactly. Same is true for AGW. Nonense. There is zero wiggle room in the physics of C02 & climate temps There is very little wiggle room in the basic physics of how CO2 works as a green house gas. There is TONS of wiggle room about how the warming works as part of the massively complex system of the earth's environment with many other things that cause warming and cooling. Its clear that all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a net marginal effect of adding upwards pressure on temperatures. What is less then clear is exactly how much upward pressure it will exert, how much of the CO2 will stay in the atmosphere (rather than being collected in to various carbon sinks such as the oceans), and what other factors may be at play and how much effect each of these factors will have. We can say that the 1990's and the 2000's where warmer than the middle of the twentieth century and warmer than the 19th century. That doesn't mean we can say that the 2010's or 2020's or 2030's will be warmer than the 2000's let alone how much warmer they will be. You like the comparison to evolution. Fine. I'll throw in another one. Evolution is solid and important science, but we can't with any high degree of confidence predict what species will evolve in the future.