"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???

[Red1966]

Since evolution is not dictated by what you consider to be advancement. You need to explain how we are currently failing to follow the path of natural selection.

Quite easily. Evolution is based on natural selection. You know, "survival of the fittest"? Due to modern medical science, even the most unfit not only survive, but reproduce even more than the fit.

 

[Red1966]

Did I do that? I seem to recall pointing out how shitty a particular premise was.

Yes, by pretending that 97% of all eco-nuts writing articles about man-made global warming somehow translates to 97% of all scientists.

 

[kpmarine]

Yes, by pretending that 97% of all eco-nuts writing articles about man-made global warming somehow translates to 97% of all scientists.

Did I say that? I must have missed it.

 

[kpmarine]

Quite easily. Evolution is based on natural selection. You know, "survival of the fittest"? Due to modern medical science, even the most unfit not only survive, but reproduce even more than the fit.

"Survival of the fittest" is not defined by you. Although, if someone manages to outlive and out-reproduce you due to medical science; would they not be the fittest? I ask because that's how natural selection works.

You're judgement of what is most genetically fit is irrelevant to what nature decides through simple reproduction.

 

[Red1966]

"Survival of the fittest" is not defined by you. Although, if someone manages to outlive and out-reproduce you due to medical science; would they not be the fittest? I ask because that's how natural selection works. You're judgement of what is most genetically fit is irrelevant to what nature decides through simple reproduction.

I did not attempt to define "Survival of the fittest". No, they would not. Medical intervention is not natural selection. I made no judgement as to "what is most genetically fit". You argue with statements I never made. Yet, you still survive, presumably even reproduce. Thus proving the statement I did make.

 

[kpmarine]

I did not attempt to define "Survival of the fittest". No, they would not. Medical intervention is not natural selection. I made no judgement as to "what is most genetically fit". You argue with statements I never made. Yet, you still survive, presumably even reproduce. Thus proving the statement I did make.

So you're just throwing out terms and expecting me to read your mind? You say that medical science allow the "unfit" to live. If you don't want me to use my crystal ball, then define your terms.

 

[Red1966]

So you're just throwing out terms and expecting me to read your mind? You say that medical science allow the "unfit" to live. If you don't want me to use my crystal ball, then define your terms.

I used the same terms you just did. Your argument is pretty lame. Would you like me to define "lame" for you?

 

[kpmarine]

I used the same terms you just did. Your argument is pretty lame. Would you like me to define "lame" for you?

Nope, I'd like you to define "unfit".

 

[Red1966]

In this context: unfit: pertaining to an organism or population that is not adapted to prevailing conditions or is not producing offspring in sufficient numbers to maintain its contribution to the gene pool of the next generation.

 

[kpmarine]

In this context: unfit: pertaining to an organism or population that is not adapted to prevailing conditions or is not producing offspring in sufficient numbers to maintain its contribution to the gene pool of the next generation.

So the only way you can define "unfit" is by extinction. Meaning anyone that reproduces is not currently unfit.

Quite easily. Evolution is based on natural selection. You know, "survival of the fittest"? Due to modern medical science, even the most unfit not only survive, but reproduce even more than the fit.

You're contradicting yourself. Or am I missing something?

 

[Red1966]

You're missing something.

 

[kpmarine]

You're missing something.

Yet you fail to explain what that is. Thus avoiding a simple slam dunk. I find that interesting.

 

[Red1966]

The word "or". So your argument of "only" was, in fact, a lie. I find your replies uninteresting.

 

[jahbrudda]

So the only way you can define "unfit" is by extinction. Meaning anyone that reproduces is not currently unfit.

You're contradicting yourself. Or am I missing something?

I believe you are missing something.
Natural selection is not natural when modern technology interferes.

 

[Padawanbater2]

That young people. lacking experience, are gullible? If you think wisdom declines with age and experience, you are an idiot.

Wisdom =/= intelligence

if you think it does, you are an idiot

Humans are de-evolving.

You don't understand how evolving works, how would you know how devolving works?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Where is the missing link?

What would you accept as irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change?

None of you will touch this question because there is nothing you would accept. How can you continue to deny your motivations are not political or religious when you can't answer that single simple question?

 

[jahbrudda]

Wisdom =/= intelligence

if you think it does, you are an idiot

All things being equal, if you believe it doesn't, well, you're young and inexperienced.

 

[NLXSK1]

What would you accept as irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change?

None of you will touch this question because there is nothing you would accept. How can you continue to deny your motivations are not political or religious when you can't answer that single simple question?

Nobody is disputing climate change. Look at any climate change graph and you will not see any plateau's. The climate is warming or it is cooling and has been since the world was formed.

What is the supposed normal set temperature for the earth? Why dont you show me a graph that shows a steady line and then where we have deviated from that steady line and suddenly become much hotter... Oh wait, it doesnt exist...

What we are disputing is man's ability to change that graph in a way that fundamentally changes the weather and even if it was happening that a massive transfer of wealth from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries, with lots of middlemen of course, would do anything to resolve a problem that we are disputing is a problem in the first place.

 

[Padawanbater2]

All things being equal, if you believe it doesn't, well, you're young and inexperienced.

Wisdom is not equal to intelligence. Wisdom didn't get us to the Moon, it wasn't wisdom that invented vaccines...

Wisdom is knowing what is right and just, it has to do with human morality and ethics, not intelligence

Nobody is disputing climate change.

The debate is about anthropogenic climate change (human involvement)

Look at any climate change graph and you will not see any plateau's. The climate is warming or it is cooling and has been since the world was formed.

Nobody is disputing that, the dispute is if humans hold any responsibility for the rate of the change

What is the supposed normal set temperature for the earth?

The temperature of the Earth fluctuates

Why dont you show me a graph that shows a steady line and then where we have deviated from that steady line and suddenly become much hotter... Oh wait, it doesnt exist...

I could show you every graph in the world and you would just say it's from a biased source or the way they did it was somehow unscientific.

​What would you accept as irrefutable proof of anthropogenic climate change?

 

[jahbrudda]

Wisdom is not equal to intelligence. Wisdom didn't get us to the Moon, it wasn't wisdom that invented vaccines...

Wisdom is knowing what is right and just, it has to do with human morality and ethics, not intelligence

wis·dom

noun: wisdom
1.
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.


Crystallized intelligence:
Crystallized intelligence refers to the knowledge and skills that are accumulated over a lifetime. This type of intelligence tends to increase with age.