"either the serious rise in temperatures and atmospheric CO2 coincided with the start of the industrial revolution and has been accelerating since, and is a much larger change than the preceding millennia, or not"
As for the other issues - hasn't evolution been observed in bacterial samples?
I don't have time to look it up now before work, but I remember learning once that a species of bird in the Galapagos Islands (called Darwin's finches, I think it was) shows natural selection on a yearly basis. Something about the size or shape of their beaks reacting to the previous year's food conditions.
Everything I've ever read on the subject says evolution is a scientific fact (i.e. that it is an observable phenomenon that generations of species change on a genetic level due to some factor) as well as a theory (scientists pretty much all agree on the method of these changes, genetics, natural selection, and mutation mostly being understood things). Kinda like how it's observable fact that objects of mass attract each other, and there are theories of how this works.
Of course this an issue of non-scientific people not understanding the difference between these two things.
Creationists have been forced to give ground on the "variation/evolution and selection within a species happens". They now just contest whether it could've and did produce humans from microbes, as opposed to God creating some set of species 6000 years ago which have been since experiencing variation, even speciation, but not genus-level changes. After all, even a scientist would have to admit 6000 years is not enough for making the human genome from random organic molecules -.-
The problem with science is if you take data in a stupid way, or miscalibrate something, it is easy to get data that doesn't correspond well with the truth--even ignoring deliberate untruths. In most disciplines, majority vote ends up ruling, with some weighting given to papers with careful technique, people with good reputations. The contradictory data exists, but it's mostly ignored or passed off with "we're not sure what happened here and we can't reproduce it." Any time politicians get involved though those minority papers get dragged out like they're gospel, and because they're in the literature they must be trustworthy and "equally" true, right guys? And anyone who can break their instrument or interpret their results to reproduce those findings gets funding to do it more, and loudly.
Yeah this is one of those aforementioned "these people need bitchslapped" conditions.
Non technical people really should be prevented from making technical decisions. This is globally applicable. I mean, sure they can weigh in on any secondary non-technical issues that said decision may bring up, but if the issue is primarily a technical one (is this theory really how this works?, should we go with back-end infrastructure A or B?, Should we use metal X or Y for this building? etc)
I suspect that part of the problem is that politicians have a slightly different understanding of "truth"-- after all, in their field, "truth" is something malleable, and open to rhetoric.
recall that the east coast is a bastion of enlightened thought; most of the nation, geographically, is comprised of backwater regions that stifle the mind. Its in the population density, imho. A denser populous lends itself to much more rapid transmission and analysis of different ideas. When you're in an isolated community, its easier to just swallow what your 'leaders' feed you.
i agree with you about non-technical people not being permitted to make technical decisions. But how do we *make* more people technically-minded? Or, at least, train them to develop a sense of logic beyond math?
Comments 12
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Your alternate hypothesis appears to be one hell of a coincidence. Or possibly "God exists and He is dicking with us."
Reply
I don't have time to look it up now before work, but I remember learning once that a species of bird in the Galapagos Islands (called Darwin's finches, I think it was) shows natural selection on a yearly basis. Something about the size or shape of their beaks reacting to the previous year's food conditions.
Reply
Of course this an issue of non-scientific people not understanding the difference between these two things.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Non technical people really should be prevented from making technical decisions. This is globally applicable. I mean, sure they can weigh in on any secondary non-technical issues that said decision may bring up, but if the issue is primarily a technical one (is this theory really how this works?, should we go with back-end infrastructure A or B?, Should we use metal X or Y for this building? etc)
Reply
Reply
i agree with you about non-technical people not being permitted to make technical decisions. But how do we *make* more people technically-minded? Or, at least, train them to develop a sense of logic beyond math?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment