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: TimF who wrote (20502)	2/19/2008 1:47:48 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

And as I said before, pick one opinion about the solidity of evolution. Its either solid, in which case skepticism about a number of global warming claims doesn't resemble skepticism about evolution. Or evolutionary theory isn't solid, in which case skepticism about it is reasonable. Either way its unreasonable to flip flop between the two points, arguing that evolution is shaky (so that it resembles the predictions of those arguing about a serious global warming problem), but also solid (so that those who are skeptical about it are deserving or ridicule, or at least are unreasonable. Have it one way, or have it the other, but you can't have it both ways. Your post merely reflects how completely you misunderstand the issue. I'm making the point that it is both ways. There are not just one, but MANY points about evolution where we lack solid data or solid understanding. Yet evolution is a very solid theory. There is absolutely no conflict between these two facts, yet your post above indicates you are very confused by this and think I have a problem arguing "both sides". I'm not arguing both sides, simply stating the facts as they are. It is precisely what I'm trying to get across to you. It is also why the analogy with GW denial is very good. The reason evolution is a very solid theory despite important gaps is that it provides a comprehensive framework, which fits the data at many thousands of points. The creationist theories on the other hand attempt to Band-Aid point issues, but utterly lack a comprehensive framework. When challenged on this point, they resort to "proof" type arguments saying "IF I show reasonable doubt in this specific area, then your evolution theory collapses". Unfortunately, not true. Global warming deniers make the same mistake. There are of course very specific points which can negate both evolution and AGW, but the data to support those is lacking. In evolution a couple of very devastating ones would be: 1) If different species showed no morphological or genetic relationships. That would argue very strongly for created "kinds" 2) If the geologic column had no order to it. Things like that would destroy evolution. Of course if such data existed, it is doubtful that evolution as a theory would have been developed. In AGW, data showing zero physical effect from CO2 on atmospheric radiation would also destroy AGW. Again, the data supporting that is lacking while the data showing the opposite is very well in hand. No it isn't. They also deny much more recent evolution. (If you argued that there where ten thousand separate initial common ancestors a billion years ago they would still disagree with you. Not sure what you mean by this. YEC's actually advocate much more rapid evolution than evolutionary biologists do. This is a direct consequence of the fact that in their theory, all modern humans descended from a common ancestor only 6000 years ago. In order to get the diversity of human races today, that implies a very rapid rate of evolutionary change. They don't mind this, because most of them accept "micro evolution" (i.e. within a species or "kind") but object to evolution of species itself. I think you are incorrect that they would object to 10K common ancestors a billion years ago IF certain conditions were met: In fact, if any data could back up having just two different sets of common ancestors, one for humans and one for everything else, I'm pretty sure the evolution/creation debate would come to a screeching halt. And it would not matter if the common ancestor of humans lived 3.5 billion years ago, provided their fossils looked reasonably like modern humans, or better yet, if they looked like "superior" humans. That would be welcomed with open arms. The fundamentalist Christian groups would have zero problem in redefining the Genesis 6-days to be "ages" in that case. The problem is 100% having humans and everything else linked. We are descended from the Gods, not from slime. If only the data backed that up!