Evolution

[tzor]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

Do we? Now I might be nit picking here. Let's look at the general definition of species, "as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Now the question of sub-species changing into a sub-species might be somewhat established in proof, but finding the exact transition where a Subspecies, say A75 is so varied from the opriginal subspecies A1 or another variation of the subspecies, say A98 that they are no longer "capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

So, for example, do we have an actual event where the donkey (Equus africanus) or anyone else in the donkey's species, clearly became separate from that of the horse (Equus ferus)? I have a feeling that this is not as easy as you might think. While the origin of sub-species is the topic of evolution, the actual origin of species is extreemely long term isolationism so that genetic drift among the isolated populations reaches the critical non matching point. Indeed such creatures might not actually be introduced to each other until hundreds of generations after this point.

We actually have evidence of the opposite, how non isolation leads to non species creation. Dogs are a good example; hundreds of breeds but they are all the same species as their common ancestor the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Actual species that differ include Dire Wolf (Canis dirus) (extinct), Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis), Coyote (Canis latrans), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus), Side-striped Jackal (Canis adustus), and the Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas). In these cases we see the effects of long term isolation creating the species, but the exact moment that they became their own species is probably blurry at best.

(I'll add that "long term isolation" doesn't mean physical isolation. If changes in habitat or behavior are so significant that the sub scpecies are no longer sexually interested in each other - "hey you have blue feet ... I only fall for red feet" then that is an effective isolation mechanism.)

[puppydog85]

Try reading a science book

I take it that you are unable to come up with any proof yourself? If it is so simple that any science book can prove it, it should be very simple for you to give an example.

[warmonger1981]

watch the debate then we can talk. hovind goes over a wide range of so called evolution facts and scientific evidence... we all will see things in a different manner

[rdsrds2120]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

Do we? Now I might be nit picking here. Let's look at the general definition of species, "as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Now the question of sub-species changing into a sub-species might be somewhat established in proof, but finding the exact transition where a Subspecies, say A75 is so varied from the opriginal subspecies A1 or another variation of the subspecies, say A98 that they are no longer "capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

So, for example, do we have an actual event where the donkey (Equus africanus) or anyone else in the donkey's species, clearly became separate from that of the horse (Equus ferus)? I have a feeling that this is not as easy as you might think. While the origin of sub-species is the topic of evolution, the actual origin of species is extreemely long term isolationism so that genetic drift among the isolated populations reaches the critical non matching point. Indeed such creatures might not actually be introduced to each other until hundreds of generations after this point.

We actually have evidence of the opposite, how non isolation leads to non species creation. Dogs are a good example; hundreds of breeds but they are all the same species as their common ancestor the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Actual species that differ include Dire Wolf (Canis dirus) (extinct), Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis), Coyote (Canis latrans), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus), Side-striped Jackal (Canis adustus), and the Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas). In these cases we see the effects of long term isolation creating the species, but the exact moment that they became their own species is probably blurry at best.

(I'll add that "long term isolation" doesn't mean physical isolation. If changes in habitat or behavior are so significant that the sub scpecies are no longer sexually interested in each other - "hey you have blue feet ... I only fall for red feet" then that is an effective isolation mechanism.)

Player said that species come from other species. You questioned her, then just said the line was blurry (affirming you accept that species come from other species). What's your position?

-rd

[tzor]

Player said that species come from other species. You questioned her, then just said the line was blurry (affirming you accept that species come from other species). What's your position?

Player said that we have "proof" of species creation. I suggested that the proof is more in sub-species creation, as the amount of time that woiuld cause enough genetic drift to actually create a "new" secies is vague at best and occues in an environment of extreeme isolation from the other speciess (otherwise you would have a refresh of the prior species into the species to constantly remain with new sub-species). The only proof of new species is after the fact and even then, since one does not have the full genetic material going back every generation, even then the line is really hard to acutately pin down. The exact "date" of hte birth of the species that donkeys belong to, for example, would be extreemely difficult to cauculate. We know they are a distinct species from horses, but we don't have "proof" of when the exact moment occured. We only know because now they are different enough to produce infertile offspring.

Thus we have exceptionally strong circumstancial evidence that Oorcam's razor would suggest is fairly solid; not "proof" of the actual "event." As I said before, I was nit picking.

By the way, as far as I know there is no known evidence of speceies combining, that is one species somehow being compatible with a different species and forming a brand new species in the process. Species only divide over time. Yes this is also another nit pick but it's an important one. The "multiple" origin of man theory was quite popular in Drawin's time and was used as the basis for many of the early 20th century eugenics movements. If there were multiple species of humans then there would be no offspring between them that could continue to reproduce. Curently this does not exist among the species Homo Sapiens.

That's important because there are more loonies out there than creationists.

[Symmetry]

Player said that species come from other species. You questioned her, then just said the line was blurry (affirming you accept that species come from other species). What's your position?

Player said that we have "proof" of species creation. I suggested that the proof is more in sub-species creation, as the amount of time that woiuld cause enough genetic drift to actually create a "new" secies is vague at best and occues in an environment of extreeme isolation from the other speciess (otherwise you would have a refresh of the prior species into the species to constantly remain with new sub-species). The only proof of new species is after the fact and even then, since one does not have the full genetic material going back every generation, even then the line is really hard to acutately pin down. The exact "date" of hte birth of the species that donkeys belong to, for example, would be extreemely difficult to cauculate. We know they are a distinct species from horses, but we don't have "proof" of when the exact moment occured. We only know because now they are different enough to produce infertile offspring.

Thus we have exceptionally strong circumstancial evidence that Oorcam's razor would suggest is fairly solid; not "proof" of the actual "event." As I said before, I was nit picking.

By the way, as far as I know there is no known evidence of speceies combining, that is one species somehow being compatible with a different species and forming a brand new species in the process. Species only divide over time. Yes this is also another nit pick but it's an important one. The "multiple" origin of man theory was quite popular in Drawin's time and was used as the basis for many of the early 20th century eugenics movements. If there were multiple species of humans then there would be no offspring between them that could continue to reproduce. Curently this does not exist among the species Homo Sapiens.

That's important because there are more loonies out there than creationists.

Meh, took me just a few seconds to find a modern day example of species interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

In captivity, crosses between zebras and other (non-zebra) equines have produced several distinct hybrids, including the zebroid, zeedonk, zony, and zorse. In certain regions of Kenya, plains zebras and Grévy's Zebra coexist, and fertile hybrids occur.[6]

Link

Plain's Zebra and Grévy's Zebra are different species.

QED

[natty dread]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[PLAYER57832]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

evidence please?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 820949.htm

Given the right conditions, mammals can sometimes evolve very quickly, says Georges.

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

and

Georges suggests climate change will be another powerful driver of speciation in the future.

"The characteristics of a particular species are normally quite stable developmentally, even if environmental conditions fluctuate. But if you push the environment beyond normal variability, you release what is termed 'cryptic' genetic variation — switching on previously inactive genes and accumulated genetic variation that is normally hidden, providing fodder for rapid evolution.

A remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years.

For a different mosquito example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151324.htm

Also, related story about fish
http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish- ... ation.html

None of these were actually the ones I have known about. They were all just from my FIRST Bing search, and only the first few links. But you only asked for one example.

[PLAYER57832]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

Do we? Now I might be nit picking here. Let's look at the general definition of species, "as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Now the question of sub-species changing into a sub-species might be somewhat established in proof, but finding the exact transition where a Subspecies, say A75 is so varied from the opriginal subspecies A1 or another variation of the subspecies, say A98 that they are no longer "capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

OK, first off, that bit about not being able to interbreed is not really the modern definition. For one thing, some species could "genetically"/physically, etc breed, but do not because of some behavior, others do not because of some physical distance. Then you have the Great Dane/Chihuaha example. A dane can probably birth a chihuaha baby, but a chihuaha would almost certainly die trying to have a 1/2 g. Dane baby.

BUT beyond all that, while there is some dispute over exactly where the line of when something goes from being a subspecies to a new species, there is NO dispute that it does happen. And, at some point, there is just no dispute that a new species has plainly evolved.

So, for example, do we have an actual event where the donkey (Equus africanus) or anyone else in the donkey's species, clearly became separate from that of the horse (Equus ferus)? I have a feeling that this is not as easy as you might think. While the origin of sub-species is the topic of evolution, the actual origin of species is extreemely long term isolationism so that genetic drift among the isolated populations reaches the critical non matching point. Indeed such creatures might not actually be introduced to each other until hundreds of generations after this point.

We actually have evidence of the opposite, how non isolation leads to non species creation. Dogs are a good example; hundreds of breeds but they are all the same species as their common ancestor the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Actual species that differ include Dire Wolf (Canis dirus) (extinct), Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis), Coyote (Canis latrans), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus), Side-striped Jackal (Canis adustus), and the Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas). In these cases we see the effects of long term isolation creating the species, but the exact moment that they became their own species is probably blurry at best.

None of this matters.
Its sort of like saying that people disagree over when the weather is hot. True. Some people consider 80 degrees F "hot", for some its more like 100 F. Plus, humidity matters. At the same time, I doubt any sane person will claim that 110 degrees is anything BUT hot.

So, too with species. Biologists may and very much DO argue over whether a particular set of fish are really different species or not, whether Rainbow trout really are Pacific Salmon or more close to European trout (an old debate long since resolved) .. BUT no one denies that a Walleye and Salmon are very different species!

(I'll add that "long term isolation" doesn't mean physical isolation. If changes in habitat or behavior are so significant that the sub scpecies are no longer sexually interested in each other - "hey you have blue feet ... I only fall for red feet" then that is an effective isolation mechanism.)

I am a biologist, ya know......
Seriously, that is just talk of the mechanisms and debate over where the line between species should be drawn.

To bring up another example, when does orange go from yellow-orange to orange-yellow and when does it become Golden or just plain "yellow"? I doubt you and I could agree on an EXACT definition, come to EXACTLY the same point on the color chart. But.. I think we each learned to distinguish orange from yellow around kindergarten (if not earlier).

[PLAYER57832]

Player said that species come from other species. You questioned her, then just said the line was blurry (affirming you accept that species come from other species). What's your position?

Player said that we have "proof" of species creation. I suggested that the proof is more in sub-species creation, as the amount of time that woiuld cause enough genetic drift to actually create a "new" secies is vague at best and occues in an environment of extreeme isolation from the other speciess (otherwise you would have a refresh of the prior species into the species to constantly remain with new sub-species).

As noted above, all you are doing is saying that where the line lies is blurry. That does not mean that there is no distinction. Think, again, of the box of crayons.
i can gaurantee if you were to have a very gradual color chart (paint chips, perhaps) and were to ask them to tell you exactly where orange-yellow becomes yellow-orange, you would get a range of answers. YET... they will all pretty much agree that sunflower yellow is "yellow".

The only proof of new species is after the fact and even then, since one does not have the full genetic material going back every generation, even then the line is really hard to acutately pin down. The exact "date" of hte birth of the species that donkeys belong to, for example, would be extreemely difficult to cauculate. We know they are a distinct species from horses, but we don't have "proof" of when the exact moment occured. We only know because now they are different enough to produce infertile offspring.

I don't understand why you think this is relavent? My statement is that modern species have been found to have evolved. After the fact, as you noted.

Thus we have exceptionally strong circumstancial evidence that Oorcam's razor would suggest is fairly solid; not "proof" of the actual "event." As I said before, I was nit picking.

Not just nit-picking, rather distorting. Sorry, but you just are not addressing the fundamental question at all.

By the way, as far as I know there is no known evidence of speceies combining, that is one species somehow being compatible with a different species and forming a brand new species in the process. Species only divide over time.

I am not sure this is actually true.
So many species have become extinct, so many species have existed that we know nothing at all about (in some cases, we can speculate that x species was likely becuase we see the "before" and "after" species and know there had to be some kind of transition species -- though of course we have many transition species). So, it is quite possible that this has happened at some point.

BUT what I CAN say is that species determined to have been different species or on the edge of becoming new species have interbred. One example is dogs and wolves. Another is horses and Donkeys (mules are almost always, but not always, infertile)

Yes this is also another nit pick but it's an important one. The "multiple" origin of man theory was quite popular in Drawin's time and was used as the basis for many of the early 20th century eugenics movements. If there were multiple species of humans then there would be no offspring between them that could continue to reproduce. Curently this does not exist among the species Homo Sapiens.

You are actually wrong, here. Several other hominid species (the "hobbits" is one example) are known to have existed. AND, even though we did not evolve from Neanderthals, it is thought that early Cro Magnon and Neanderthal might have interbred for a time. (this is HIGHLY debatable, with all due respect to Clan of the Cave bear... )

That's important because there are more loonies out there than creationists.

Creationists are not loonies. That is the whole trouble. If they were they could be just dismissed. They have been heavily misguided. The more I look into this, the more I believe this is intentional, by some folks very intent on destroying our knowledge of natural science and biology.

[tzor]

You are actually wrong, here. Several other hominid species (the "hobbits" is one example) are known to have existed. AND, even though we did not evolve from Neanderthals, it is thought that early Cro Magnon and Neanderthal might have interbred for a time. (this is HIGHLY debatable, with all due respect to Clan of the Cave bear... )

I'm not wrong. Homo floresiensis is still a Homo (oh is that a horrid but accurate statement).

Despite its smaller body size, smaller brain, and mixture of primitive and advanced anatomical features, the new species falls firmly within the genus Homo. The researchers speculate that the hobbit and her peers evolved from a normal-size, island-hopping Homo erectus population that reached Flores around 840,000 years ago.

The multiple origin theory would have insisted that people from one continent evolved from a completely different line than people from another continent and somehow later became all one happy species.

[PLAYER57832]

You are actually wrong, here. Several other hominid species (the "hobbits" is one example) are known to have existed. AND, even though we did not evolve from Neanderthals, it is thought that early Cro Magnon and Neanderthal might have interbred for a time. (this is HIGHLY debatable, with all due respect to Clan of the Cave bear... )

I'm not wrong. Homo floresiensis is still a Homo (oh is that a horrid but accurate statement).

The same genus is very different from the same species.

Again, PLEASE actually study your basic definitions before attempting to discuss this.

Despite its smaller body size, smaller brain, and mixture of primitive and advanced anatomical features, the new species falls firmly within the genus Homo. The researchers speculate that the hobbit and her peers evolved from a normal-size, island-hopping Homo erectus population that reached Flores around 840,000 years ago.

The multiple origin theory would have insisted that people from one continent evolved from a completely different line than people from another continent and somehow later became all one happy species.

That is not something seriously considered. The real multiple origin theory I mentioned is about the very beginning. NO one credible in modren science has suggested multiple human orgins.

[tzor]

That is not something seriously considered. The real multiple origin theory I mentioned is about the very beginning. NO one credible in modren science has suggested multiple human orgins.

The Misuse and Abuse of Darwinian Concepts in Social Theory (or was Darwin a Social Darwinist?)

For this reason, as the concept of hierarchy of races on which White man stick had appeared long before the popularization of Darwin’s Evolution Theory. This discussion continued in Darwinian period and Darwin’s ideas on the issue of how races are closely related came to the fore8. However, among the ones who inflicted this burden upon Darwin were important scientists like Marvin Harris and Jacques Barzun (see 1965:135)9. Because the hypothesis adopted by racism was polygenism rather than Darwin’s Theory which implies single origin. There were various arguments and approaches on the problem of human nature at the end of 18th century and in early 19th century. The idea of ‘monogenism’ posits a single origin of humanity whereas polygenism posits multiple origin. In 19th and 20th centuries this was the major argument in the fields of anthropology and biology and it is difficult to claim that throughout this period the idea/argument of polygenism won out10. Today, as Darwin had predicted long before11, it is widely accepted that the progenitors of man was originated in Africa and spread out to the world.

Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism

“We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the *white* race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white”,

and that:

“… there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. Not a word is said about the yellow races, and it is only an arbitrary interpretation of the text that makes us regard the patriarch Ham as black”.

THE MULTIPLE ORIGIN OF MAN BY W. H. BALLOU

THAT men and associated animals arose in dififerent parts of the earth, at different times, whenever and wherever conditions favored such evolution, was the conclusion of Louis Agassiz, after a life of tireless investigation.

Only the theory of multiple origin—^ in effect, that respective races arose or evolved where we find them in habitat—could explain things to his mind. Thus the black races and associated animals arose in Africa; the white races in Europe; the yellow races in Asia; the tan-colored races in South America; the copper-colored races in North America; etc.

[Symmetry]

Those aren't credible modern sources, Tzor. But to be frank, I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

That is not something seriously considered. The real multiple origin theory I mentioned is about the very beginning. NO one credible in modren science has suggested multiple human orgins.

The Misuse and Abuse of Darwinian Concepts in Social Theory (or was Darwin a Social Darwinist?)

For this reason, as the concept of hierarchy of races on which White man stick had appeared long before the popularization of Darwin’s Evolution Theory. This discussion continued in Darwinian period and Darwin’s ideas on the issue of how races are closely related came to the fore8. However, among the ones who inflicted this burden upon Darwin were important scientists like Marvin Harris and Jacques Barzun (see 1965:135)9. Because the hypothesis adopted by racism was polygenism rather than Darwin’s Theory which implies single origin. There were various arguments and approaches on the problem of human nature at the end of 18th century and in early 19th century. The idea of ‘monogenism’ posits a single origin of humanity whereas polygenism posits multiple origin. In 19th and 20th centuries this was the major argument in the fields of anthropology and biology and it is difficult to claim that throughout this period the idea/argument of polygenism won out10. Today, as Darwin had predicted long before11, it is widely accepted that the progenitors of man was originated in Africa and spread out to the world.

I see you missed the words "modern" and "credible".

Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism

“We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the *white* race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white”,

and that:

“… there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. Not a word is said about the yellow races, and it is only an arbitrary interpretation of the text that makes us regard the patriarch Ham as black”.

THE MULTIPLE ORIGIN OF MAN BY W. H. BALLOU

THAT men and associated animals arose in dififerent parts of the earth, at different times, whenever and wherever conditions favored such evolution, was the conclusion of Louis Agassiz, after a life of tireless investigation.

Only the theory of multiple origin—^ in effect, that respective races arose or evolved where we find them in habitat—could explain things to his mind. Thus the black races and associated animals arose in Africa; the white races in Europe; the yellow races in Asia; the tan-colored races in South America; the copper-colored races in North America; etc.

[/quote]
At one point, folks thought the world was flat, too. ... and while you still have some people claiming that blacks and so forth are inferior, it is not an accepted view among credible scientists. A few more claim that Asians are superior than that blacks are inferior to whites, but that may be just because people are not quite as likely to attack what might be percieved as a "positive" bias.


Really tzor, this is starting to look like plan flat out trolling. Unless you can come up with something better, this is just getting silly.

[jimboston]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

Did I miss the "destruction"?

[PLAYER57832]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

Did I miss the "destruction"?

Well, see that requires paying attention to facts.

A key point of anti-evolutionists and young earthers in particular is that they conveniently IGNORE and distort facts.

They attempt to make it a matter of competing experts... but, in fact, those they present are not actually experts in anything but the art of distortion. Sadly, it does take some science education to understand that...ergo the attack on science education...ergo the circle is complete and we now have large numbers of people believing that there is come credible proof that evolution never happened.

[jimboston]

Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?

Did I miss the "destruction"?

Well, see that requires paying attention to facts.

A key point of anti-evolutionists and young earthers in particular is that they conveniently IGNORE and distort facts.

They attempt to make it a matter of competing experts... but, in fact, those they present are not actually experts in anything but the art of distortion. Sadly, it does take some science education to understand that...ergo the attack on science education...ergo the circle is complete and we now have large numbers of people believing that there is come credible proof that evolution never happened.

Player... I was not in any way trying to get involved in the debate here.

I am simply pointing out the fact that Gillipig started this thread... and said he was going to "destroy" anyone opposed to the idea of Evolution... and he hasn't been heard from yet (except to say that the destruction is coming).

[PLAYER57832]

OK.

But I think other people have taken on the destruction aspect.

[jimboston]

OK.

But I think other people have taken on the destruction aspect.

Yeah... but Gillipig promised.

[tzor]

At one point, folks thought the world was flat, too.

Actually that's a total myth. The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere (more or less). The notion of the flast earth was a 19th cenruty invention designed to throw some interesting spice into the story of Coumbus.

You stated "That is not something seriously considered." Then when I proved that it was seriously considered in the late 19th century you suddenly add "you missed the words 'modern' and 'credible'. " I'm not going to go back to argue the context of the context of the context. That it was serious enough for be taken up by governments hell bent to take over the world is enough. That it was also used by the eugenics movement in general is also an indication that it was serious. There are a lot of "serious" things that simply aren't credible.

The muiltiple origin theory of man did exist, is was taken seriously by people in authority and that was my point. Not that it was credible or it was true, but that it was taken seriously by people in authority.

Like, you know, global warming.

[PLAYER57832]

At one point, folks thought the world was flat, too.

Actually that's a total myth. The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere (more or less). The notion of the flast earth was a 19th cenruty invention designed to throw some interesting spice into the story of Coumbus.

Some educated people did realize the Earth was a sphere, but no, not all people did.

Like, you know, global warming.

No, not at ALL like global warming. But hey, you have to actually read science literature and not political hype that pretends to be science to get that part.

[tzor]

Some educated people did realize the Earth was a sphere, but no, not all people did.

That's a cop-out. People who weren't educated had no opinion one way or the other. I realize that is how the Democratic Party gains a political consensus (let's just ask the people who haven't educated on the subject) but that's not what I was talking about. No one, for example. actually argued against Columbus' voyage because the "earth was flat." They complained he had the size of the earth wrong and he did. He, on the other hand, might have had "insider information" - not Muslems as they claimed before the Democratic convention but European deep sea fishermen who generally don't talk about where the good fish are. That might have caused him to believe in the incorrect size of the earth.

No, not at ALL like global warming. But hey, you have to actually read science literature and not political hype that pretends to be science to get that part.

Now which literature is that? Is it ...

1. The groups who directly depend on maintaining a "crisis" in order to get funding and deliberately hide any data that doesn't make their point conclusive?
2. The groups that really don't have anything to do with global warming but if they put a global warming spin on it someone may give them research dollars?
3. Goverment officials who need an excuse to gain more power who publish data that reflects that point of view.

There is nothing complex about the lack of solid evidence; as the Facebook profile option goes "it's complicated." That doesn't mean that there isn't an impact; it does mean that we didn't all die from hurricanes in the 2012 season as was predicted or that Key West Florida would mostly be underwater by now. Our weather patterns are more impacted by boy and girl babies (or their more commonly known spanish names) than by surface and even water temperatures.

[PLAYER57832]

No, not at ALL like global warming. But hey, you have to actually read science literature and not political hype that pretends to be science to get that part.

Now which literature is that? Is it ...

1. The groups who directly depend on maintaining a "crisis" in order to get funding and deliberately hide any data that doesn't make their point conclusive?
2. The groups that really don't have anything to do with global warming but if they put a global warming spin on it someone may give them research dollars?
3. Goverment officials who need an excuse to gain more power who publish data that reflects that point of view.

There is nothing complex about the lack of solid evidence; as the Facebook profile option goes "it's complicated." That doesn't mean that there isn't an impact; it does mean that we didn't all die from hurricanes in the 2012 season as was predicted or that Key West Florida would mostly be underwater by now. Our weather patterns are more impacted by boy and girl babies (or their more commonly known spanish names) than by surface and even water temperatures.

Your above post pretty much proves my point. Contrary to what you assert, there are few issues with more consensus than that the Earth's climate is changing, and the ones with patent bias are not the ones saying that climate change IS happening, it is among those saying it is NOT.

Sure, in the broad mix of scientists agreeing that climate change is happening, some do have biases... but you are talking about one of the largest groups of scientists to agree EVER, so diversity is to be expected. HOWEVER, if you go to the opposing side, you see essentially ONLY biased scientists or "scientists" who are not experts in the field at all, sometimes not even scientists.

There have been a couple of threads on this already, several of us researched and brought up the data then. Revisit those thread and it is still there.

See, the standards of science are fact and proof, not who has the money. Not denying that money can influence, but its also pretty easy to find those types of biases...and they are found! In this case, the bias is in those AGAINST global climate change, not those saying it is true (on the whole ..again, I am not claiming that in thousands of scientists all are unbiased, I am saying that on the whole, they are not).

[rdsrds2120]

At one point, folks thought the world was flat, too.

Actually that's a total myth. The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere (more or less). The notion of the flast earth was a 19th cenruty invention designed to throw some interesting spice into the story of Coumbus.

Some educated people did realize the Earth was a sphere, but no, not all people did.

Not enough people to matter. As in, the only people today that think electricity is composed of small fairies sending power are people in insane asylums. History won't look back at them and see a significant amount to postulate upon.

Some sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

http://anadder.com/the-flat-earth-myth-revisited

BMO