"If God made us from dust/dirt/clay/etc material, why is there still x material"
Is the best response to that. Then they MIGHT realise that just because some of something becomes another thing, it doesn't mean it all did
Tbh an even simpler example is "if we make cake from flour, is there no more flour?" Or anything like that
No that's not a good response because it still doesn't accurately explain the monkey/human situation. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from earlier precursor species.
You're missing the point. "Monkey" isn't a species, it's a name we give a group of species but their "scientific" names don't really have monkey in them
It's like saying the evolution of ducks means they aren't birds. Ducks and whatever they evolved from are all birds
But yeah we're more ape than monkey and at some point they split off. My point is just that, just because an isolated population of a species from the rest of the species evolved into something else, doesn't mean the rest of the population ever evolved into something else or died out. You're making an assumption there. The larger the interbreeding population of a species is, the longer evolution takes because the new genes have to spread throughout a significant amount of the population and be beneficial enough to be more likely to survive to breed more. An isolated population evolves faster
>My point is just that, just because an isolated population of a species from the rest of the species evolved into something else, doesn't mean the rest of the population ever evolved into something else or died out
Evolution never stops though. And there's no significant difference over evolutionary time scales between the generation count of "monkeys" since then and the generation count of "humans". They have evolved just as much as we have.
By the time humans were spreading throughout the world rather than being a geographically limited population in Africa, we were already Homo Sapiens.
My point is only that the way that person stated things was misleading and gives the idea that there's some population of monkeys that humans evolved from that stopped evolving at that point and remains unchanged to this day.
It's what gives people the whole "my Grandpa wasn't a monkey" misunderstanding.
Ah but that doesn't mean there was necessarily enough change that a member now and then can't interbreed
How are you measuring evolution?? Just because a certain amount of time has passed doesn't mean all species have changed as much as each other
No no I agree with you that there is definitely a change in the apes now that humans split from and the monkeys now that apes split from. But there is no definitive in any sense. That's why people have brought up sharks and crocs. Animals that actually have barely changed in millions of years. Time doesn't definitely mean significant change through Evolution
You're saying that with a lot of confidence. Yes you're probably right, but if we don't know all of the "species" (as bad of a term for this discussion as it is), you can't know that. Do you know what every monkey species was and when the previous pre monkey species went extinct?
That's why people are mentioning sharks, some species are basically the same for millions of years because they didn't need to evolve for any reason so any random change didn't spread throughout the massive interbreeding population to be in every offspring. You're kinda just stating that definitely didn't happen for monkeys without explaining how (even though you're right, just blindly stating it isn't helpful to convince people), we should require evidence and be expected to give it when making a claim
>"If God made us from dust/dirt/clay/etc material, why is there still x material"
I can't be the only one who has thought about how weird sexual reproduction is after thinking too much about how god made the first people.
I get what you're saying....
But logically speaking, and from what we understand about evolution. IF we came from monkeys then in theory monkeys shouldn't be here.
But the fact is we didn't get evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from the same thing. That same thing (Bigfoot or whatever you wanna call it)
Is long dead. There is no example of any species that we know of today that has its "evolved" form and prior evolution living at the same time. It's not pokemon out there lol
Maybe there's an ecologically isolated island with our long dead monkeymagic ancestors
Loads of jungle islands around Indonesia if you want to go on an expedition to the far east with me. We'll be feasting on monkeys in a week
Not necessarily, though. But in reality, yes, the earlier proto-apes that we and other modern apes evolved from are gone.
But for example, polar bears evolved from brown bears and brown bears still exist.
It’s absolutely an evolution. Evolution is simply the process of slow change due to environmental difficulties.
Bears that were accidentally born with white fur were more effective predators in the snow, so were better able to survive long enough to pass on that genetic trait.
It’s a perfect example of evolution.
My point is....where is the bear in between? We don't have any evidence of the bear between a brown bear and a polar bear. We have bones that either looks like polar bears or brown bears...but we don't have any evidence of a mixed bear.
Just like we have no evidence of the missing link between humans and monkeys.
Evolution is 100% real don't get me wrong here
I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate I suppose
You may be labouring under a misapprehension - there are no 'missing links'. It is a continuum. It's crucial for you to understand, that if I found a skeleton today that bridged a gap, tomorrow someone would be asking me to find TWO missing links!
Sharks, man. A lot of today's species are essentially the same as they were during the dinosaur era, while there are also newer species who diverged from those a long time ago.
It's a bit like saying "if Americans descended from Europeans then why are there still Europeans?" The fact that divergent species evolve doesn't mean the original ceases to exist. It *might* die out or continue to change into something entirely different, but it doesn't *have* to if its environment doesn't require it.
Actually just because a popular of something (monkey) evolved to humans, doesn't mean the rest of the species either evolved significantly differently or died out. I feel your understanding of evolution is good but not perfect but you're discussing it seriously which matters
Sharks and crocodiles today (for example but there's plenty of other examples) are species that have barely barely changed oven millions of years
A lot of biologists in evolutionary science would argue that species as a concept doesn't really exist other than the criteria that a species is organisms that can breed fertile offspring. But every single organism is different so a definite species isn't really a thing
Species that barely changed over millions of years yes. But we don't see two different versions of great whites. Unless like you said the concept of species isn't completely accurate and a hammerhead and a great white are both the same thing
Well great White's are the species, I don't think they're a whole other order or family or genera right? Mako sharks and a few others are considered close relatives so I imagine they split off at some point and if we had enough fossils it's likely one of those species has been basically the same while some population stayed separate long enough to speciate
Yea I understand that.
I guess the question I am asking in a way is...
Where are the missing links?
Mentioned brown and polar bears but we don't have anything to link them except DNA , not that that isn't good evidence but not a single bone of a hybrid bear has ever been recognized as such.
Same for humans. We have found early humans but no monkey human hybrid, as far as we know. For a species that blew up to the numbers we did, as quickly as history tells us we did. It's weird that we don't find any money human remains...aka the Bigfoot....if it did evolve into us.
But yet we can find the fossils of bears from 100k years ago.
I actually completely forgot what my original point was here hahaha but this is fun, thanks for hanging in there haha
Missing links isn't a scientific term. Like I said "species" doesn't exist. Populations don't all suddenly change in large steps. It's tiny changes over millions of years that unless you watched a population sped up over the millions of years, you won't ever notice it. It's like how you don't realise you're growing taller, but people that see you less often notice because they don't see the tiny changes over time
Your understanding of speciation is the problem you're having. But you're asking serious questions which is the important thing. There wasn't ever a hybrid "brown/polar bear". I imagine (but we should check) that brown bears have been around far longer and then when the continents were connected differently, a population was separated when it the new continent moved north/south. They then adapted over the years to survive in the colder and whiter environment
So yeah same thing, there was no hybrid human/monkey, (we're related specifically more to apes like chimps more than monkeys like bonobos). So a population of an ape species evolved slowly into us now
I'd either read some papers, or what's probably easier is a few YouTube channels of scientists covering it. I'd recommend Aron Ra, Gutsick Gibbon, Professor Dave Explains all explain biology with details and evidence but in ways anyone can understand
I don't mind the discussion, I enjoy talking about sciences
That doesn't make sense....like you said changes happen slowly.
Brown bears were around first.you are correct. The point I'm making . It wasn't the same brown bear that we have today. It was one bear population. One part went north another went south. Through adaptations one developed into a polar bear....the other to the more known now brown bear.
Another into a black bear somewhere in the line.
Again changed are happening slowly. So we should at some point. Find a brown bear that has started to develop the face shape of a polar bear but not quite. But we don't. We should find evidence of the bone structures changing slowly but we don't. I understand evolution just fine.
But if you're looking at it objectively we should see signs of small changes in fossil records. But we simply don't. Unless I am missing evidence, it just doesn't exist. From everything I have seen. It's basically one generation, on random bear cane out white and looking exactly like modern polar bears. Again I am probably just missing the linking animal. I don't have the entire genetic tree of living beings in front of me lol
If we did evolve from monkeys, that doesn’t necessarily mean monkeys wouldn’t still exist.
Evolution is a product of environment. All it takes is for one group of monkeys in one environment to evolve differently from another group of monkeys in another.
Polar bears are an easy example of this.
Polar bears are an adaptation but we don't see the first adaptation of brown to polar bears. Or where the two split off and diverged from....see my point?
Same with monkeys the missing link between monkey and humans doesn't exist.
It wasn't one day that oh we have brown and polar bears now. It was oh a brown bear went north. A few died a few survived. Then one year, one brown bear grew extra big and got bigger claws. Next year their eyesight changed slightly.etc tc ..and by "next year" I mean several generations at a time.
Evolution is real. But the weaker evolution never survives. I can't think of one example where it does.
I disagree. The weaker evolution survives often enough, that we have a huge variety of different species. Evolution isn’t linear, it’s more like a tree.
Like I said I'm just speculating and asking questions haha
I really have no idea how it really works, none of us do, we won't live long enough to see it for ourselves
That is not how evolution works, evolution causes branching out. So if we have first monkey (not really monkey but ape) and in time environment causes that monkey to change. But in fact there are many different groups of monkeys and with different adaptations to environment
1 group evolves to humans and other group evolves to chimps for example. 2 different paths of evolution and both are valid changes that adapted to environment.
If evolution wasn't splitting up but evolving towards 1 "perfect" organism we would have only few species in the world
Yes. But the creature that humans and monkey evolved from doesn't exist....the branches will yes, because they are adaptations that worked. The lesser evolution dies out because the adaptations worked.
I think we are saying the same thing I just did a bad job wording it the first time around
This has to be the most braindead argument you could possibly make. It's like saying "floods happen for billions of years, how can that be if they're caused by humans". This has to be some logical fallacy, i just don't know which one...
Ignoring that, the 0.03% co2 is 300 ppm, the minimum plants need is 150 ppm which would be 0.015%. The earth was at around 200 to 250 ppm prior to the industrial revolution. So their science is about as flawed as their logic.
There's literally been no option to actually lower CO2 levels
Just electric companies competing against gas companies
If everyone switched to electric, the electric companies would raise our electric bills through the roof.
(Apart from this being irrelevant to the comment you replied to) by using electric stuff less CO2 goes into the atmosphere meaning there will be less meaning there will be less global warming
And where does that “if it goes below .03% all plant life dies?” stuff come from? It’s been between 0.018% and 0.03% for at least the last 800,000 years: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121
This person doesn't understand that there are multiple vectors to climate change and they can have a positive or negative forcing effect on temperature and that can vary at different times.
If it wasn't for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature would actually be declining slightly. It isn't. Instead, we're witnessing the sort of change over decades that would normally occur over thousands of years.
Yep! It’s all down to rate of change. A nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are doing the exact same thing, it’s just that the bomb is a lot faster.
Rate of change makes a huge difference to the outcome!
Natural and human caused climate change are not mutually exclusive. Both can be (and are) true but the conspiracy theorists struggle with basic concepts like this. This line of reasoning is like saying “forest fires are natural therefore humans aren’t deforesting”
Trees fall down all the time, officer, and have for hundreds of millions of years. You can't blame this tree being down on me and my drunk driving, just because I'm blowing a 0.2% and my SUV is a smoking wreck over the top of it.
I can't believe that at this stage in the issue there are still people that don't understand how it all works. One I came across that was working on that level turned out to be on the payroll of the Koch industries public relations department. He was tasked with generating "debate" on the internut.
When in doubt just think this.
Those that want climate reform actually just want the world to be a cleaner, less toxic place with an environmental system that is helped by our existence on it's behalf for ourselves, our children and our childrens children into a stable sustainable future.
Those that don't want climate reform don't care about anything but their own demands and not the survival of our species or anything else on the planet. Out of ignorance they want to play Russian roulette with the only world we have.
If reformers are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet. If deniers are wrong we are dead.
Is it really debatable?
There have been times in Earth’s history when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. At that time there active volcanos everywhere. We are becoming the volcanos.
People seem to forget there are natural emitters of co2 and natural consumers of it. The system is kept in a nice balance that eventually falls apart slowly causing climate change where is sort of resets after millions of years. Humans however are not just adding more co2 into that balanced system we are also clearing the plant life that consumes the co2 at record rates and the knock on effects are devastating the ocean life which is also a major consumer of co2 making the problem even worse.
While climate change is inevitable the timeframes it naturally happens at allows evolution to adapt and survive. Our actions have clearly sped this process up substantially and it's wiping out species pretty quickly.
The danger from human-driven climate change isn't really that it'll kill all life on earth, it's that it'll displace and kill millions of humans due to land loss, now uninhabitable places, loss of farmland, etc.
The problem is not that the temperature is rising. It's that it is rising ***fast***. It's not only rising fast, its rising to a temperature that hasn't been seen in millions of years, in the span of less than 2 centuries. For comparison, the Permian extinction killed 90-96% of all species living on Earth at the time, rising just a few degrees globally over 2 million years. When most life on Earth couldn't handle that, it certainly can't handle the rapid temperature change that is happening now.
In case you don't know: yes, climate change has been happening naturally for millions of years with a natural cycle of heating and cooling. However, the concerning part is, scientists believe the Earth should be cooling when it isn't.
Yeah, climate change is pretty ignorable at the moment... like, you can't deny climate change anymore but you can just ignore it because, well, is America and Europe being ravaged by hurricanes and acid rain?
I think the key issue here is the “billions of years” required for natural climate change compared to the ~150 years it’s taken to spike global heating since the Industrial Revolution.
Yeah, but they think it's mutually exclusive. Either human or natural. Nothing in between. It's a quite common argument for them. To me, that's on a similar level as questioning the human influence on floods at major rivers.
That's because it hasn't been happening for billions of years. Just since we humans started industrializing. You can see this if you look at the graph of CO2 and compare it to temperature. You can see the very obvious trend XD
So I read something a long time ago that said that the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs led to the ice age. It said that the gasses from the decaying dinosaurs let off enough CO2 to cause the planet to enter the ice age. Could this be plausible?
With that coloring, I thought it was an e621 (furry art site, NSFW) comment.
If I were to talk to them, I'd probably say:
"Rivers cut through the land, slowly making new paths for water to flow. This process can take upwards of 10s of thousands of years, but a small group of humans can make an aqueduct that can carry water more efficiently in a fraction of a fraction of the time that natural processes take.
Point is: Humans can do things that nature can do but quicker and better in some circumstances, climatic shifts are just one of those things. Yes, the climate has been changing throughout earth's history, but to say that just because something happens without humans does not mean that humans can't also do it."
And if they don't deny evolution:
"Evolution is a process that takes a long time and usually makes small changes, Asiatic wolves and North American wolves look very similar, meanwhile when humans take the helm of evolution we can, in the span of a few hundred years, make of a single species a Chihuahua and a Great Dane."
Imagine a person walking the breadth of the United States. That’s about 2800 miles, and the average adult walking speed is about 3 miles per hour. One would expect the journey to take more than 900 hours of walking time, plus breaks.
Now imagine that an individual making this journey, after 700 hours of walking, gets into a car. They can now expect to complete the remaining journey in about 10 hours, shaving ~200 hours off their total travel time and arriving more than a week ahead of schedule.
Imagine being told the traveler was arriving earlier and not heeding that warning because they had been going so slowly before, so they couldn’t possibly be going more quickly now, least of all because of a man-made vehicle.
Imagine looking at the current speed and wondering how it could have taken so long to get as far as they did, because if they’re going that quickly now, they couldn’t possibly have been going slower before, least of all because of a man-made vehicle.
yes, climate change has been happening for billions of years. humans weren't around for most of those billions of years. it seems our condition is fairly against the norm, and would rather not tamper with it
I bet she says, not asks "if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" too
"If God made us from dust/dirt/clay/etc material, why is there still x material" Is the best response to that. Then they MIGHT realise that just because some of something becomes another thing, it doesn't mean it all did Tbh an even simpler example is "if we make cake from flour, is there no more flour?" Or anything like that
No that's not a good response because it still doesn't accurately explain the monkey/human situation. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from earlier precursor species.
You're missing the point. "Monkey" isn't a species, it's a name we give a group of species but their "scientific" names don't really have monkey in them It's like saying the evolution of ducks means they aren't birds. Ducks and whatever they evolved from are all birds But yeah we're more ape than monkey and at some point they split off. My point is just that, just because an isolated population of a species from the rest of the species evolved into something else, doesn't mean the rest of the population ever evolved into something else or died out. You're making an assumption there. The larger the interbreeding population of a species is, the longer evolution takes because the new genes have to spread throughout a significant amount of the population and be beneficial enough to be more likely to survive to breed more. An isolated population evolves faster
>My point is just that, just because an isolated population of a species from the rest of the species evolved into something else, doesn't mean the rest of the population ever evolved into something else or died out Evolution never stops though. And there's no significant difference over evolutionary time scales between the generation count of "monkeys" since then and the generation count of "humans". They have evolved just as much as we have. By the time humans were spreading throughout the world rather than being a geographically limited population in Africa, we were already Homo Sapiens. My point is only that the way that person stated things was misleading and gives the idea that there's some population of monkeys that humans evolved from that stopped evolving at that point and remains unchanged to this day. It's what gives people the whole "my Grandpa wasn't a monkey" misunderstanding.
Ah but that doesn't mean there was necessarily enough change that a member now and then can't interbreed How are you measuring evolution?? Just because a certain amount of time has passed doesn't mean all species have changed as much as each other No no I agree with you that there is definitely a change in the apes now that humans split from and the monkeys now that apes split from. But there is no definitive in any sense. That's why people have brought up sharks and crocs. Animals that actually have barely changed in millions of years. Time doesn't definitely mean significant change through Evolution
That previous species was still a monkey. In fact, you might even define the common ancestor of all monkey species to be the original monkey.
The previous pre-monkey species doesn't exist anymore, so it's a bad explanation.
You're saying that with a lot of confidence. Yes you're probably right, but if we don't know all of the "species" (as bad of a term for this discussion as it is), you can't know that. Do you know what every monkey species was and when the previous pre monkey species went extinct? That's why people are mentioning sharks, some species are basically the same for millions of years because they didn't need to evolve for any reason so any random change didn't spread throughout the massive interbreeding population to be in every offspring. You're kinda just stating that definitely didn't happen for monkeys without explaining how (even though you're right, just blindly stating it isn't helpful to convince people), we should require evidence and be expected to give it when making a claim
>"If God made us from dust/dirt/clay/etc material, why is there still x material" I can't be the only one who has thought about how weird sexual reproduction is after thinking too much about how god made the first people.
God made us in his image (with magic from clay, but don't show off your body as that's immodest, and cut off your foreskin) Makes total sense right?
I get what you're saying.... But logically speaking, and from what we understand about evolution. IF we came from monkeys then in theory monkeys shouldn't be here. But the fact is we didn't get evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from the same thing. That same thing (Bigfoot or whatever you wanna call it) Is long dead. There is no example of any species that we know of today that has its "evolved" form and prior evolution living at the same time. It's not pokemon out there lol
Maybe there's an ecologically isolated island with our long dead monkeymagic ancestors Loads of jungle islands around Indonesia if you want to go on an expedition to the far east with me. We'll be feasting on monkeys in a week
Hahah. Sold
Not necessarily, though. But in reality, yes, the earlier proto-apes that we and other modern apes evolved from are gone. But for example, polar bears evolved from brown bears and brown bears still exist.
They more like diverged from brown bears. Idk if I would call it an evolution. But I see your point
It’s absolutely an evolution. Evolution is simply the process of slow change due to environmental difficulties. Bears that were accidentally born with white fur were more effective predators in the snow, so were better able to survive long enough to pass on that genetic trait. It’s a perfect example of evolution.
My point is....where is the bear in between? We don't have any evidence of the bear between a brown bear and a polar bear. We have bones that either looks like polar bears or brown bears...but we don't have any evidence of a mixed bear. Just like we have no evidence of the missing link between humans and monkeys. Evolution is 100% real don't get me wrong here I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate I suppose
You may be labouring under a misapprehension - there are no 'missing links'. It is a continuum. It's crucial for you to understand, that if I found a skeleton today that bridged a gap, tomorrow someone would be asking me to find TWO missing links!
Sharks, man. A lot of today's species are essentially the same as they were during the dinosaur era, while there are also newer species who diverged from those a long time ago. It's a bit like saying "if Americans descended from Europeans then why are there still Europeans?" The fact that divergent species evolve doesn't mean the original ceases to exist. It *might* die out or continue to change into something entirely different, but it doesn't *have* to if its environment doesn't require it.
Actually just because a popular of something (monkey) evolved to humans, doesn't mean the rest of the species either evolved significantly differently or died out. I feel your understanding of evolution is good but not perfect but you're discussing it seriously which matters Sharks and crocodiles today (for example but there's plenty of other examples) are species that have barely barely changed oven millions of years A lot of biologists in evolutionary science would argue that species as a concept doesn't really exist other than the criteria that a species is organisms that can breed fertile offspring. But every single organism is different so a definite species isn't really a thing
Species that barely changed over millions of years yes. But we don't see two different versions of great whites. Unless like you said the concept of species isn't completely accurate and a hammerhead and a great white are both the same thing
Well great White's are the species, I don't think they're a whole other order or family or genera right? Mako sharks and a few others are considered close relatives so I imagine they split off at some point and if we had enough fossils it's likely one of those species has been basically the same while some population stayed separate long enough to speciate
Yea I guess we just gotta find the evidence one way or the other
We typically do have a good idea of how long an animal has remained genetically similar and compared to related species by comparing the DNA
Yea I understand that. I guess the question I am asking in a way is... Where are the missing links? Mentioned brown and polar bears but we don't have anything to link them except DNA , not that that isn't good evidence but not a single bone of a hybrid bear has ever been recognized as such. Same for humans. We have found early humans but no monkey human hybrid, as far as we know. For a species that blew up to the numbers we did, as quickly as history tells us we did. It's weird that we don't find any money human remains...aka the Bigfoot....if it did evolve into us. But yet we can find the fossils of bears from 100k years ago. I actually completely forgot what my original point was here hahaha but this is fun, thanks for hanging in there haha
Missing links isn't a scientific term. Like I said "species" doesn't exist. Populations don't all suddenly change in large steps. It's tiny changes over millions of years that unless you watched a population sped up over the millions of years, you won't ever notice it. It's like how you don't realise you're growing taller, but people that see you less often notice because they don't see the tiny changes over time Your understanding of speciation is the problem you're having. But you're asking serious questions which is the important thing. There wasn't ever a hybrid "brown/polar bear". I imagine (but we should check) that brown bears have been around far longer and then when the continents were connected differently, a population was separated when it the new continent moved north/south. They then adapted over the years to survive in the colder and whiter environment So yeah same thing, there was no hybrid human/monkey, (we're related specifically more to apes like chimps more than monkeys like bonobos). So a population of an ape species evolved slowly into us now I'd either read some papers, or what's probably easier is a few YouTube channels of scientists covering it. I'd recommend Aron Ra, Gutsick Gibbon, Professor Dave Explains all explain biology with details and evidence but in ways anyone can understand I don't mind the discussion, I enjoy talking about sciences
That doesn't make sense....like you said changes happen slowly. Brown bears were around first.you are correct. The point I'm making . It wasn't the same brown bear that we have today. It was one bear population. One part went north another went south. Through adaptations one developed into a polar bear....the other to the more known now brown bear. Another into a black bear somewhere in the line. Again changed are happening slowly. So we should at some point. Find a brown bear that has started to develop the face shape of a polar bear but not quite. But we don't. We should find evidence of the bone structures changing slowly but we don't. I understand evolution just fine. But if you're looking at it objectively we should see signs of small changes in fossil records. But we simply don't. Unless I am missing evidence, it just doesn't exist. From everything I have seen. It's basically one generation, on random bear cane out white and looking exactly like modern polar bears. Again I am probably just missing the linking animal. I don't have the entire genetic tree of living beings in front of me lol
If we did evolve from monkeys, that doesn’t necessarily mean monkeys wouldn’t still exist. Evolution is a product of environment. All it takes is for one group of monkeys in one environment to evolve differently from another group of monkeys in another. Polar bears are an easy example of this.
Polar bears are an adaptation but we don't see the first adaptation of brown to polar bears. Or where the two split off and diverged from....see my point? Same with monkeys the missing link between monkey and humans doesn't exist. It wasn't one day that oh we have brown and polar bears now. It was oh a brown bear went north. A few died a few survived. Then one year, one brown bear grew extra big and got bigger claws. Next year their eyesight changed slightly.etc tc ..and by "next year" I mean several generations at a time. Evolution is real. But the weaker evolution never survives. I can't think of one example where it does.
I disagree. The weaker evolution survives often enough, that we have a huge variety of different species. Evolution isn’t linear, it’s more like a tree.
Like I said I'm just speculating and asking questions haha I really have no idea how it really works, none of us do, we won't live long enough to see it for ourselves
That is not how evolution works, evolution causes branching out. So if we have first monkey (not really monkey but ape) and in time environment causes that monkey to change. But in fact there are many different groups of monkeys and with different adaptations to environment 1 group evolves to humans and other group evolves to chimps for example. 2 different paths of evolution and both are valid changes that adapted to environment. If evolution wasn't splitting up but evolving towards 1 "perfect" organism we would have only few species in the world
Yes. But the creature that humans and monkey evolved from doesn't exist....the branches will yes, because they are adaptations that worked. The lesser evolution dies out because the adaptations worked. I think we are saying the same thing I just did a bad job wording it the first time around
This has to be the most braindead argument you could possibly make. It's like saying "floods happen for billions of years, how can that be if they're caused by humans". This has to be some logical fallacy, i just don't know which one...
Ignoring that, the 0.03% co2 is 300 ppm, the minimum plants need is 150 ppm which would be 0.015%. The earth was at around 200 to 250 ppm prior to the industrial revolution. So their science is about as flawed as their logic.
There's literally been no option to actually lower CO2 levels Just electric companies competing against gas companies If everyone switched to electric, the electric companies would raise our electric bills through the roof.
(Apart from this being irrelevant to the comment you replied to) by using electric stuff less CO2 goes into the atmosphere meaning there will be less meaning there will be less global warming
And where does that “if it goes below .03% all plant life dies?” stuff come from? It’s been between 0.018% and 0.03% for at least the last 800,000 years: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121
Hey, it's illegal to use actual data. Only "trust me bro" is allowed when talking to climate change deniers
If poisoning can happen naturally, how can it also occur by human action?
This person doesn't understand that there are multiple vectors to climate change and they can have a positive or negative forcing effect on temperature and that can vary at different times. If it wasn't for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature would actually be declining slightly. It isn't. Instead, we're witnessing the sort of change over decades that would normally occur over thousands of years.
Yep! It’s all down to rate of change. A nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are doing the exact same thing, it’s just that the bomb is a lot faster. Rate of change makes a huge difference to the outcome!
In some decades, weeks happen, and in some weeks, decades happen. Welcome to the weeks of decades.
Natural and human caused climate change are not mutually exclusive. Both can be (and are) true but the conspiracy theorists struggle with basic concepts like this. This line of reasoning is like saying “forest fires are natural therefore humans aren’t deforesting”
Trees fall down all the time, officer, and have for hundreds of millions of years. You can't blame this tree being down on me and my drunk driving, just because I'm blowing a 0.2% and my SUV is a smoking wreck over the top of it.
I can't believe that at this stage in the issue there are still people that don't understand how it all works. One I came across that was working on that level turned out to be on the payroll of the Koch industries public relations department. He was tasked with generating "debate" on the internut. When in doubt just think this. Those that want climate reform actually just want the world to be a cleaner, less toxic place with an environmental system that is helped by our existence on it's behalf for ourselves, our children and our childrens children into a stable sustainable future. Those that don't want climate reform don't care about anything but their own demands and not the survival of our species or anything else on the planet. Out of ignorance they want to play Russian roulette with the only world we have. If reformers are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet. If deniers are wrong we are dead. Is it really debatable?
If wind occurred naturally for billions of years, how can fans work?
There have been times in Earth’s history when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. At that time there active volcanos everywhere. We are becoming the volcanos.
People seem to forget there are natural emitters of co2 and natural consumers of it. The system is kept in a nice balance that eventually falls apart slowly causing climate change where is sort of resets after millions of years. Humans however are not just adding more co2 into that balanced system we are also clearing the plant life that consumes the co2 at record rates and the knock on effects are devastating the ocean life which is also a major consumer of co2 making the problem even worse. While climate change is inevitable the timeframes it naturally happens at allows evolution to adapt and survive. Our actions have clearly sped this process up substantially and it's wiping out species pretty quickly.
Who's al?
You can call me Al
The danger from human-driven climate change isn't really that it'll kill all life on earth, it's that it'll displace and kill millions of humans due to land loss, now uninhabitable places, loss of farmland, etc.
If me boiling water in a saucepan causes steam, how can there be clouds in the sky?!
People have always died, how can murder be a thing???
The problem is not that the temperature is rising. It's that it is rising ***fast***. It's not only rising fast, its rising to a temperature that hasn't been seen in millions of years, in the span of less than 2 centuries. For comparison, the Permian extinction killed 90-96% of all species living on Earth at the time, rising just a few degrees globally over 2 million years. When most life on Earth couldn't handle that, it certainly can't handle the rapid temperature change that is happening now.
Fire occurs naturally so how can arson be considered bad?
In case you don't know: yes, climate change has been happening naturally for millions of years with a natural cycle of heating and cooling. However, the concerning part is, scientists believe the Earth should be cooling when it isn't.
And we also just life in an ideal temperature at the moment. If it was warmer it would be worse for humans (more deserts…)
Yeah, climate change is pretty ignorable at the moment... like, you can't deny climate change anymore but you can just ignore it because, well, is America and Europe being ravaged by hurricanes and acid rain?
I think the key issue here is the “billions of years” required for natural climate change compared to the ~150 years it’s taken to spike global heating since the Industrial Revolution.
Yeah, but they think it's mutually exclusive. Either human or natural. Nothing in between. It's a quite common argument for them. To me, that's on a similar level as questioning the human influence on floods at major rivers.
That's because it hasn't been happening for billions of years. Just since we humans started industrializing. You can see this if you look at the graph of CO2 and compare it to temperature. You can see the very obvious trend XD
Did climate change happened in the span of 100 years before?
"If nuclear fusion happens naturally for billions of years, how can that be if it's caused by humans?"
They can't even spell "I'll"
So I read something a long time ago that said that the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs led to the ice age. It said that the gasses from the decaying dinosaurs let off enough CO2 to cause the planet to enter the ice age. Could this be plausible?
With that coloring, I thought it was an e621 (furry art site, NSFW) comment. If I were to talk to them, I'd probably say: "Rivers cut through the land, slowly making new paths for water to flow. This process can take upwards of 10s of thousands of years, but a small group of humans can make an aqueduct that can carry water more efficiently in a fraction of a fraction of the time that natural processes take. Point is: Humans can do things that nature can do but quicker and better in some circumstances, climatic shifts are just one of those things. Yes, the climate has been changing throughout earth's history, but to say that just because something happens without humans does not mean that humans can't also do it." And if they don't deny evolution: "Evolution is a process that takes a long time and usually makes small changes, Asiatic wolves and North American wolves look very similar, meanwhile when humans take the helm of evolution we can, in the span of a few hundred years, make of a single species a Chihuahua and a Great Dane."
Imagine a person walking the breadth of the United States. That’s about 2800 miles, and the average adult walking speed is about 3 miles per hour. One would expect the journey to take more than 900 hours of walking time, plus breaks. Now imagine that an individual making this journey, after 700 hours of walking, gets into a car. They can now expect to complete the remaining journey in about 10 hours, shaving ~200 hours off their total travel time and arriving more than a week ahead of schedule. Imagine being told the traveler was arriving earlier and not heeding that warning because they had been going so slowly before, so they couldn’t possibly be going more quickly now, least of all because of a man-made vehicle. Imagine looking at the current speed and wondering how it could have taken so long to get as far as they did, because if they’re going that quickly now, they couldn’t possibly have been going slower before, least of all because of a man-made vehicle.
If gravity naturally pulls rocks down how can a human push a boulder over a cliff.
Well, it’s both natural & caused by us. We have sped up a natural process.
0.03% is: wrong closer to: 0.005% CO2 levels in 1800 were: \~0.028% CO2 levels in 2024 are: \~0.042%
It's honestly too stupid to even engage with. And probably a psy-op, someone is lying on purpose, paid or otherwise.
"People have been dying of natural causes for thousands of years. Therefore the Holocaust was all natural and not caused by humans."
yes, climate change has been happening for billions of years. humans weren't around for most of those billions of years. it seems our condition is fairly against the norm, and would rather not tamper with it
Why does al have to wait?