Evolution vs. Anthropogenic Global Warming

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by eagleseven, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    With the recent Climategate Scandal, a discussion of the differences and similarities between AGW and Evolution are warranted.

    As far as scientific theory goes, evolution has proven itself particularly useful. Specifically, it explains why bacteria and viruses keep changing to defeat our medical technology. Without evolutionary theory, there's no reason why bacteria and viruses should change at all.

    Unless God makes modern bacteria antibiotic-resistant, and creates new types of viruses like HIV, just to make our lives miserable? (although if you asked Pat Robertson, he'd argue God created HIV to punish the homosexuals).


    How does evolution differ from Climategate? In several important ways:

    1. Unlike AGW, Evolutionary theory is continually evolving, changing as new discoveries are made. The core of the theory is Darwin's principle of "Natural Selection", but his other ideas which were shown to be false have since been dropped.

    Part of the problem with evolution-skeptics is that they argue against Darwin's version of the theory, not realizing that the theory has dramatically changed. There are now answers to many questions skeptics had 200 years ago.

    2. Unlike AGW, scientists have and continue to aggressively argue over the details of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin, in his day, had arguments with rival evolutionary theorists (see Lamarck, Leibniz, Herder, Buffon, etc). Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the only theory from that era which has survived nearly 200 years of peer-review.

    3. AGW is a very new theory, established merely twenty years ago. In contrasts, evolutionary theory dates back to the natural philosophers of ancient Greece and China, although it wasn't until the 1700s that science had become advanced enough to generate convincing evidence to support or oppose the theory.

    4. Evolution is only a theory, much like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The deaths of 220,000 Japanese in 1945 are evidence supporting relativity, while the differentiation and fundamental change observed in bacteria, viruses, and some birds are evidence of Evolutionary Theory.

    The reason why they are both considered scientific theory, is because they are falsifiable. That is to say, both Special Relativity and Modern Evolution can be proven false...and indeed, many early evolutionary theories have been shown to be false.

    5. Last, but not least, there is the matter of scale. AGW was created and pushed by a small group of elite insiders, who went to great pains, even breaking the law, to keep outside scientists out of their research. Evolutionary theory is being studied by thousands of scientists acting independently around the world, and skeptics are actively encouraged to join in on the research.

    What isn't tolerated, however, is using scientific publications to argue the validity of a particular religion (monotheism), as the Intelligent Design people do. This often causes the ID folks to scream "conspiracy," but rather, it is a matter of scientific integrity. The scientific community avoids any theories that involve supernatural deities, because there is no way to perform rigorous experiments upon said gods. How, pray tell, do the ID folks intend to prove that there is but one intelligent designer, and not a pantheon of intelligent designers? They cannot, and thus intelligent design stunts scientific discovery.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2009
  2. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,925
    Thanks Received:
    650
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,047
    I read this early today, and thought I'd add in that a big difference between Evolution and AGW is a matter of ego.

    If you exam relativity, theories on celestial motion, germ theories, or namely any other theory in science you'll find that the theory seeks to understand some underlying physical law. Mankind (Or God) isn't really the focus.

    Global Warming theories seem to take a different track. The underlying theme seems to be that after noticing that temperatures were on an up-tick, the early adopters automatically assumed that mankind was the cause. That seems to require a certain amount of....ego... about mankind's power and place on the planet that other theories seem to lack, to their benefit.

    I think Mankind does have the power to affect the environment, but the extent that global warming theorists claim smacks of a certain humanistic egotism that sits uncomfortably with me.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,779
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,289
    I wasn't sure what the point of the thread was? Given that global warming and evolution are denied by the same people, some similarity must exist. Can you find it? The Scopes Trial should have settled at least one of the debates. After all a majority of Americans still don't believe in that theory. Theories in America are much weaker than conspiracies. Another oddity of our culture. Given that fact it would seem majorities in America are not very reliable determinants of the correctness of a theory. Oh sorry, theories are merely theories, and until hell freezes over debatable. Of course most Americans have never looked in a mirror nude so surely there is a reason they see no resemblance to any other species?

    But back on a serious track, anyone old enough to see the results of lake, river, and ocean pollution as well as landfills that will be toxic forever knows that man can ruin the earth in all sorts of ways. And while the jury is still out on the effect man's wasteful use of materials has on this rather small planet, why not consider the positives of a Green world. Seems the sensible thing to do.

    Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

    More Proof of Global Warming: Scientific American
    Science news videos from Scientific American

    Facts About Global Warming: Do You Know the Truth?
    Scientific Proof of Global Warming : Planetsave

    11 Facts About Global Warming | Do Something

    The 400,000 year view on global warming
    James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

    But we will be all be dead regardless of who is right - oblivion comes too soon for genuine care.

    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260199991&sr=1-5]Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind (9781583228678): Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books[/ame]


    "It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit
     
  4. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    bullshit
     
  5. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,155
    A plausible argument that is actually fallacious, especially when someone dishonestly presents it as if it were legitimate reasoning.
    Sophists were Presocratic philosophers who offered to teach young Athenians how to use logic and rhetoric to defeat opponents in any controversy. Socrates and Plato sharply criticized most of the sophists because they accepted monetary rewards for encouraging unprincipled persuasive methods.

    This is not directed at the honesty of anyone; it is simply worth keeping in mind when issues arise and opinions are expressed especially when the arguments are framed within political or religious discourse.
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,175
    Thanks Received:
    14,905
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,918
    The term "Evolution" makes me cringe.

    We're all energy, from people to viruses. What is described as "Evolution" is a catch all phrase for the energetic INTENT of living organisms -- we're not all clueless sacks of protoplasm waiting to get hit by gamma rays.

    Bacteria "mutate" because they desire to continue living and being aware and that desire helps a few enterprising bacterium find a new shape that accommodates whatever we send to kill them.

    Bacteria have the ability to pass along their new found defenses to other bacteria and once they learn how to defend against our medicine they NEVER forget it, not in a thousand generations.

    I find the idea of "Random mutations" as the saving grace of bacteria, just dumb, ignorant to how life works.
     
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,070
    Thanks Received:
    6,884
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,916
    I didn't realized bacteria are so smart. You must be a doctor.
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,175
    Thanks Received:
    14,905
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,918
    You may well be smarter than the average bacterium, but they too have a self awareness and desire to continue living
     
  9. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,925
    Thanks Received:
    650
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,047
    That's the one sympathetic view I share with AGW acolytes. I think that exploring some of the Green technologies is worthwhile in and of itself, just as exploring alternative energy sources is a pressing national security issue, not just an environmental one.

    Mankind can affect the environment. If you doubt that, consider what the aftermath of a full scale nuclear exchange would be. The problem I had with AGW is that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 and other green house gases that appear to out produce mankind by enormous amounts. In the face of things, is man really so powerful that we alone are tipping the balance?

    Chances are good we're on track for a natural cycle of heating and cooling.
     
  10. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    I support the reason and logic of evolution becuase it makes sense.

    I doubt the reason and logic of Anthropogenic Global Warming because it does not make sense.

    That you have hung your argument from the supposition that those who are opposed to one are also opposed to the other makes everything else you said wrong.

    The global climate has risen by a total of 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. Across the first 1000 years, the rise was 0.4 degrees and across the second 1000 years, the rise was 0.3 degrees.

    The second 1000 years includes the rise of industrialism and the cited cause of AGW.

    In order for one to reject evolution, one needs to reject science.

    In order for one to support AGW, one needs to reject science.

    Here is where the similarity exists. Can YOU find it?
     

Share This Page