Global Warming Fuels Speedy Evolution

Discovery Channel ^ | Feb. 22, 2006 | Larry O'Hanlon

[edcoil]

Does this mean my fish will walk to my plate?

[Dimensio]

Mainly because evolutionary scientists don't have an explanation as to why the human race doesn't appear to be evolving.

Slower reproduction cycles, fewer offspring per cycle and the ability for humans to alter their environments, thus reducing the likelyhood that environmental conditions will affect reproductive success throughout the population.

I am not the first to note these facts. Why did you ignore them and claim that no explanation exists?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not too surprising. Chemical reactions generally proceed faster at higher temperatures. Any chemist (or cook) knows that.

[Dimensio]

Apparently, your creationist has a sense of humour.

Actually, he seemed pretty serious to me (read his further comments for a rather explcit admission that he believed that Christian members of the US government lied in the wording of a treaty and were justified in doing so).

[From many - one.]

You simply don't understand the subject.

Ten, a hundred, 10,000 years from now, every critter alive then will be at the top of its evolutionary chain.

[taxesareforever]

Being at the top of the chain today does not mean that more links will appear higher up tomorrow.

You are right there. Means you believe it can stop.

[taxesareforever]

Slower reproduction cycles, fewer offspring per cycle and the ability for humans to alter their environments, thus reducing the likelyhood that environmental conditions will affect reproductive success throughout the population.

Sounds just like Darwinism gone awry. If there is no answer just wait a minute and some scientist will have another theory. Mind you, no facts, just theories.

[taxesareforever]

Ten, a hundred, 10,000 years from now, every critter alive then will be at the top of its evolutionary chain.

Yep. And people then can look back and say, "hey, nothing has changed".

[Dimensio]

Sounds just like Darwinism gone awry.

How? It's an explanation based upon the fundamental principles of what drives evolution in the first place.

If there is no answer just wait a minute and some scientist will have another theory.

What "another theory"? The explanation that you have been given is based upon the fundamental principles of the theory, since it was first conceived by Darwin. There's nothing new or revolutionary about it. If you're going to attack it, could you at least demonstrate that you have some understanding of what you are being told?

[Dimensio]

You are right there. Means you believe it can stop.

I misspoke. I meant to say "Being at the top of the chain today does not mean that more links will not appear higher up tomorrow."

It can stop, but only under two conditions. The first is if no significant selection pressures exist in the environment to encourage increased reproduction upon a specific variant of the population and that environment never changes. The second is if the population goes extinct.

[From many - one.]

Except for the longer-legged frogs, the earlier birthing squirrels and whatever else occurs in the meantime, right?

[taxesareforever]

The second is if the population goes extinct.

But that isn't possible. Where did the population begin? Since it began, there are innumerable evolves in the chain that haven't made it to the top step. Evolutionists certainly can't believe that the top of the chain is all there is. Where is the bottom and the middle? They must be there somewhere. In your line of thinking, since man evolved from the lineage of apes, if the human race, the top of the chain, was to die, out more humans would in time reappear. Therefore, nothing becomes extinct in evolution, only in creationism.

[taxesareforever]

Because a frog gets longer legs is not a sign of evolution. If a frog looked at the human race would he make the same assumption about the 7 foot basketball player?

[js1138]

Seven foot humans are the result of evolution. Did you believe they were specially designed to entertain the designer?

[Dimensio]

But that isn't possible.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible for specific populations of organisms to go extinct? So dodos and passenger pigeons still exist?

Where did the population begin?

A common ancestor of all life forms.

Since it began, there are innumerable evolves in the chain that haven't made it to the top step.

There is no "top step". It's not an upward climb, it's just a succession of changes. There's no plan from the beginning, evolution simply occurs based upon variance in the gene pool and environmental selection pressure favouring specific heriditable traits.

Evolutionists certainly can't believe that the top of the chain is all there is.

"Top of the chain" simply refers to where things are now. It doesn't mean that there was an original plan from the beginning, and it doesn't mean that links won't be added on in the future -- in fact, evolution predicts as much.

Where is the bottom and the middle?

The bottom would be the very first life form. The middle is dependent on the species in question, and the midpoint will continue to change as said species evolves.

They must be there somewhere.

And?

In your line of thinking, since man evolved from the lineage of apes, if the human race, the top of the chain, was to die, out more humans would in time reappear.

Neither I nor anyone else has said this. Humans are no more "top of the chain" from the standpoint of evolution than chimpanzees, zebras and pigs. There's no single "chain". Each species represents its own chain, and many individual chains branched off from a single common chain.

Therefore, nothing becomes extinct in evolution, only in creationism.

If the number of members of a species who at one point in time had a nonzero population ever becomes zero, that species is "extinct". It would appear as though you are misunderstanding fundamental principles of both evolution and biology when you construct your arguments.

[Dimensio]

Because a frog gets longer legs is not a sign of evolution.

It is if the legs are longer as a result of longer-legged offspring having better reproductive success.

Just what do you think that evolution states?

[freedumb2003]

I am taking a break from CREVO threads for a little while.

I can't take all the lies and misrepresentations and malice from the CRIDer side.

Their "love" consists of calling all Evos Evil Nazi Atheists who want to Destroy Religion.

They can't understand the difference between faith and science -- and somehow think that attacking Evolution buttresses their mythology. My attempts to point out their lies have led to naught. They just change the definitions and move forward. Latest example: They say the AM "confirmed" you were a liar when the AM said to EVERYONE to stop calling people liars. A clear misrepresentation but they even had the stones to repeat it. What can we do with that kind of misrepresentation (i.e. lying)?

You have more patience and stamina than I. I have only been fighting this fight for the future of America a short while.

I thank you now for your continued work on this important task and wish I had your gumption, intelligence and knowledge.

I'll check back in a few months when my strength has returned.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll check back in a few months when my strength has returned.

We'll be here.

[taxesareforever]

It is if the legs are longer as a result of longer-legged offspring having better reproductive success. Just what do you think that evolution states?

Your statement is exactly why evolution will always be a theory and never a fact. In answer to your question: In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.

[Dimensio]

Your statement is exactly why evolution will always be a theory and never a fact.

I believe that you have forgotten what many others have told you in the past. Scientific theories are the highest "rank" that an explanation for an event can achieve. There is no "graduating" to any higher state, including "fact". A "Fact" in science is not a higher rank than "theory"; in science, "facts" are single data-points. They tell you what's been observed, but beyond that they're of little use. If you want to actually explain things, you need theories.

In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.

This is true. How does this contradict what I said?