10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 25
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 





However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).


This is not a problem for evolution. In the 150 years since Darwin many hundreds of transitional forms have been found. Darwin's publication was not the end of research, it isn't a sacred text that is frozen in time.

Here is an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils.

Here is another site with an example. Browsing this site starting at the home page is recommended, especially if you are new to the topic. There is an entire section on misconceptions.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


I'm not the moderator, nor the posting police, but before you get in trouble with those guys, you should consider the ATS Terms and Conditions, specifically:



1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, material previously posted by you on another website nor link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution, as defined by The Owners, to its original source. You will not use your postings on ATS to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated.


You really should reveal what your source is.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Your extremely long, unattributed, opinion piece, is unresponsive to the request for a demonstration of proof against any aspect of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

But since you like long posts, instead of linking to them and quoting the interesting bits you want to discuss, I'll respond to yours in kind.

My quote is from the Conclusion section of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ




Conclusion: What does the vertebrate fossil record show?

I've tried to present a reasonably complete picture of the vertebrate record as it is now known. As extensive as it may seem, this is still just a crude summary, and I had to leave out some very large groups. For instance, notice that this list mostly includes transitional fossils that happened to lead to modern, familiar animals. This may unintentionally give the impression that fossil lineages proceed in a "straight line" from one fossil to the next. That's not so; generally at any one time there are a whole raft of successful species, only a few of which happened to leave modern descendents. The horse family is a good example; Merychippus gave rise to something like 19 new three- toed grazing horse species, which traveled all over the Old and New Worlds and were very successful at the time. Only one of these lines happened to lead to Equus, though, so that's the only line I described. As they say, "Evolution is not a ladder, it's a branching bush."

A Bit Of Historical Background

When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable. Opponents of Darwin's theory of common descent (the theory that evolution has occurred; not to be confused with the separate theory that evolution occurs specifically by natural selection) were justifiably skeptical of such ideas as birds being related to reptiles. The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds"). O.C. Marsh's groundbreaking study of the evolution of horses was another dramatic example of transitional fossils, this time demonstrating a whole sequence of transitions within a single family. Within a few decades after the Origin, these and other fossils, along with many other sources of evidence (such as developmental biology and biogeography) had convinced the majority of educated people that evolution had occurred, and that organisms are related to each other by common descent.

Since then, many more transitional fossils have been found, as sketched out in this FAQ. Typically, the only people who still demand to see transitional fossils are either unaware of the currently known fossil record (often due to the shoddy and very dated arguments presented in current creationist articles) or are unwilling to believe it for some reason.

What Does The Fossil Record Show Us Now?

I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:

1. A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.

2. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds).

3. Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes.

4. A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.


(continued in the next post...)

[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Continuation of excerpt from the Conclusion section of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



Good Models, Bad Models (or, "The FAQ author rambles on for a while")

And now we come to the main question. Which of the many theories of the origins of life on earth are consistent with the known vertebrate fossil record, and explain its major features? I'll go back to the two main models I outlined at the beginning, creationism and evolution, and break them down further into several different possibilities. I'll try to summarize what they say, and whether or not they are consistent with the major features of the fossil record.

1. Evolution alone (with no God, or with a non-interfering God)

Evolution of all vertebrates by descent from a common ancestor, with change occurring both through punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution, and with both modes of species formation (anagenesis and cladogenesis). These mechanisms and modes are consistent with (and in fact are predicted by) what is presently known about mutation, developmental biology, and population genetics According to this model, the remaining gaps in the fossil record are primarily due to the chance events of fossilization (particularly significant if evolution occurs locally or rapidly), in combination with immigration (the spreading of a new species from the site where it evolved out into different areas).
2. Evolution with a "Starting-gate God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God having set everything in motion in the beginning -- for instance, at the initial creation of the universe, or at the initial occurrence of life on earth -- and not having affected anything since.
3. Evolution with a "Tinkering God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God occasionally altering the direction of evolution (e.g., causing sudden extinctions of certain groups, causing certain mutations to arise). The extent of the "tinkering" could vary from almost none to constant adjustments. However, a "constant tinkering" theory may run into the problem that vertebrate history on the whole does not show any obvious direction. For instance, mammal evolution does not seem to have led inescapably toward humans, and does not show any consistent discernable trend (except possibly toward increased body size). Many lineages do show some sort of trend over time, but those trends were usually linked to available ecological niches, not to an inherent "evolutionary path", and the "trends" often reversed themselves when the environment or the competition changed.

Models 1, 2, and 3 are all consistent with the known fossil record.

4. Standard "young-earth" creationism

Creation of separate "kinds" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

5. "Separately created kinds", but with an old Earth.

Literal creationism won't fly, but could the concept of "separately created kinds" still be viable, with the creations occurring over millions of years? This would require the following convoluted adjustments:

First, if every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?
1. "Minor" evolution allowed.

In this model, the species-species transitions DO represent evolution, but of a minor and unimportant variety. Note, however, that during these bursts of "minor evolution", the evolution took place in an apparently non-directed manner, sometimes crossed genus and family lines, and resulted in just the same sorts of morphological differences that are seen between the other, presumably created, groups of animals.
2. Separately created fossils.

In this model, the "species-species transitions" do not represent evolution. This implies that every individual fossil in the species-to-species transitions must have been separately created, either by creation of the animal that later died and was fossilized, or by creation of a fossil in situ in the rock. I have heard this model called the "Lying God Theory".



(continued in the next post...)

[edit on 10/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Continuation of excerpt from the Conclusion section of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



In summary, models 1, 2, and 3 (slightly different versions of basic evolutionary theory) are consistent with the fossil record, and go further to explain its notable features with a coherent overarching framework. Evolutionary theory has made successful predictions about fossils that were discovered later (e.g. the whale fossils), about genetic patterns, and about numerous other aspects of biology such as the development of disease resistance. Model 4 (literal young-earth creationism) appears unsalvagable, as all of its predictions are wrong. Model 5 (nonliteral creationism, with separately created kinds on an old earth) can just barely be modified to be consistent with the fossil record, but only with bizarre and convoluted tinkering, and only, apparently, if God created the world to make it look like evolution happened. In my humble opinion, this still utterly fails to explain the record's notable features or to make any useful or testable predictions. It also raises the disturbing question of why God would go to such lengths to set up the appearance of evolution, right down to inserting the correct ratios of radioisotopes in the rocks.

Okay, having blathered on about that, now I'll quit pontificating and get to the main point.

The Main Point

Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.

As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Yadda, yadda, yadda! Blah, blah, blah! How does a backbone prove anything other than what once was bent, now is straight or vice versa? And for your pleasure, the source of my posts happen to be from a booklet called, "Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe?"



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





Microevolution Doesn't Prove Macroevolution


Quite right. Microevolution IMPLIES Macroevolution

And the example from 29+ Evidences I quoted is one of the contributory proofs.



How does it IMPLY macroevolution? As the post stated, MICROevolution is evolution within the SAME species.
MACROevolution is evolution within MULTIPLE species.... which has been proven false.

A human can evolve or ADAPT to his/her surroundings just as any other animal which creates specific attributes for specific invironments. Either way you look at it, a human can only reproduce with another human of the opposite sex. Macroevolution involves the reproduction of two completely different species of animals to create a new species. Microevolution (inner-species evolution) can create variations of the SAME species but not a NEW species. Take Darwin's finch studies. Beak size, body size, or feather patterns may have varied in the study but after all is said and done, they are all still finches. How can you explain a reptile becomeing a bird or a fish becomeing a mammal? There is no fossil evidence to support that kind of theory thus you are left with nothing but MICROevolution... evolution within one SPECIFIC species. It still doesn't explain how the different life forms on this planet came into existence.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga


Originally posted by Chadwickus


Your source link is from a pro god/bible/creation website.

This is a typical ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

en.wikipedia.org...

Logically that's completely false and irrelevant.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by vasaga]


It seems pretty relevant to me considering Christianity seems to be basing its complete survival on the denial of evolution. It is really rather important to them that creationism be true so they are a pretty biased source.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 





How does it IMPLY macroevolution? As the post stated, MICROevolution is evolution within the SAME species. MACROevolution is evolution within MULTIPLE species.... which has been proven false. A human can evolve or ADAPT to his/her surroundings just as any other animal which creates specific attributes for specific invironments. Either way you look at it, a human can only reproduce with another human of the opposite sex. Macroevolution involves the reproduction of two completely different species of animals to create a new species.


No. Your statement reveals your complete misunderstanding of evolution and misstates the process of Macroevolution.

Individuals don't evolve, individuals reproduce, some better than others. POPULATIONS evolve. When separated populations evolve enough, at some point they become different species. That is evolution, period.

If a group of individuals from species ABC111 migrate from one end of a mountain range to another, and then a volcano blows up and makes it impossible for those two populations to intermix ever again, their MICROevolution will proceed differently. If that continues long enough they will become different species, UNABLE (or unwilling) to interbreed even if they are allowed to intermix freely at a later date. Continuing the logic, one cell animals can become multicell animals can become fish can become reptiles can be come birds. THAT is MACROevolution.

THAT is how MACRO is implied by MICRO. It as nothing to do with individuals breeding and their offspring becoming magically a different species or family or whatever than their immediate parents. It has to do with each generation being a bit different from its predecessor and separated populations responding differently to their ecological pressures.

It is basically irrelevant anyway. The term has undergone several redefinitions over the years and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis doesn't really distinguish between micro and macro anymore - a result of the realization that macro is implied by micro and there is really no point in distinguishing between them. Ernst Mayr says

"transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.


In general however, macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. (definition stolen from Wikipedia).

Because of this de-emphasis on micro versus macroevolution in the MES, anti-evolutionists seem to think they are free to appropriate the term and redefine it to their own ends, for example to refer to changes above speciation because they cannot win their argument if they use the correct definition. In other words, they try to move the goal posts.

It doesn't make any difference however. Even if you redefine macroevolution to mean only changes at or above Genus (the next taxonomic step above species) there is plenty of fossil evidence. And so on up the scale.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The way some of you guys look at science I am starting to believe your ancestors really were monkeys, you have convinced me.
As for me, my ancestors are Adam and then Noah, my family tree goes dark after that. One day all people will know the absolute truth of this matter, just like we know now the earth is a sphere/circle/round and not flat.
Darwin started a theory and people grabbed hold of it for various reasons.

For me evolution is a mental and emotional crutch for those that can't develop faith. The accountability factor is reduced to zero as well. It is the great opt out
of intellectual matters that we don't have answers to with a supreme creator.
So we just invent idea's based on science that has been twisted to fact, instead of it staying as opinionated theory.
I have read enough science to know that there are various opinions within the scientific community on this topic, of course we are always going to side with the one that backs are personal bias and belief structure.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The way some of you guys look at science I am starting to believe your ancestors really were monkeys, you have convinced me.
As for me, my ancestors are Adam and then Noah, my family tree goes dark after that. One day all people will know the absolute truth of this matter, just like we know now the earth is a sphere/circle/round and not flat.
Darwin started a theory and people grabbed hold of it for various reasons.

For me evolution is a mental and emotional crutch for those that can't develop faith. The accountability factor is reduced to zero as well. It is the great opt out
of intellectual matters that we don't have answers to with a supreme creator.
So we just invent idea's based on science that has been twisted to fact, instead of it staying as opinionated theory.
I have read enough science to know that there are various opinions within the scientific community on this topic, of course we are always going to side with the one that backs are personal bias and belief structure.


There are no "various opinions" in the serious scientific community. Of course, if you consider Institute for creation research or similar organizations scientific, then good luck to you.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I dont see evolution as any "opt out", quite the opposite. I would want there to be some allmighty loving creator who takes care of us. Evolution is therefore not easier way. It is "sad but true" way.


(But I am not saying that creator cannot coexist with evolution, there are more christians that believe in this than hardcore creationists..)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Locoman8
 





Microevolution Doesn't Prove Macroevolution


Quite right. Microevolution IMPLIES Macroevolution

And the example from 29+ Evidences I quoted is one of the contributory proofs.



How does it IMPLY macroevolution? As the post stated, MICROevolution is evolution within the SAME species.
MACROevolution is evolution within MULTIPLE species.... which has been proven false.


Simply put, microevolution + reproductive barrier = marcoevolution (speciation)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


In that case, I think evolution scientists need to converse together and get their definitions straight. At least creationists believe there is a God who created things. Evolutionists all seem to agree on evolution, just differ on how things actually evolve.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


No, they agree on 99.99999% of the theory of evolution, as it has evidence backing it up. Solid, unshakable evidence. Multiple sources of evidence, all agreeing with each other 100%. That which they might not agree on is current hypotheses which are expanding the theory. That's how we learn. That's how come you have the internet on which to post this nonsense.

Please stop saying they don't agree, like the whole theory is on shaky ground - it isn't. I find it strange that you get so much out of life due to the scientific method, and yet as soon as it's inconvenient to one's beliefs to acknowledge that, it gets thrown out the _ Abject hypocrisy.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Don't sit there and call me a hypocrite! I am not at all against science but there seems to be a gap in science. Why is it that climatologists can't agree on global warming? One group says the earth is in a heating trend... a report that the earth has a risen temperature of 1 degree in the past 5 years. Why is it, in the past few years we've seen some of the coldest winters and milder summers? My argument is in the fact that many theories are passed off as fact instead of theories.

Fact.... Humans coming from monkeys is a THEORY.
Fact.... The major peices of evidence for the evolution theory are missing... fossils.
Fact.... Evolution (unless it's within a single species) is a theory.
Fact.... There are scientists out there, who are non-religious, that disagree with the evolutionist "proof" and who are credible scientists.

Who's wrong within the world of science? All I'm saying is to not pass something off as fact if it's still in the category of "theory." This goes for the "big bang theory" as well.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by davesidious
 


Don't sit there and call me a hypocrite! I am not at all against science but there seems to be a gap in science. Why is it that climatologists can't agree on global warming? One group says the earth is in a heating trend... a report that the earth has a risen temperature of 1 degree in the past 5 years. Why is it, in the past few years we've seen some of the coldest winters and milder summers? My argument is in the fact that many theories are passed off as fact instead of theories.

Fact.... Humans coming from monkeys is a THEORY.
Fact.... The major peices of evidence for the evolution theory are missing... fossils.
Fact.... Evolution (unless it's within a single species) is a theory.
Fact.... There are scientists out there, who are non-religious, that disagree with the evolutionist "proof" and who are credible scientists.

Who's wrong within the world of science? All I'm saying is to not pass something off as fact if it's still in the category of "theory." This goes for the "big bang theory" as well.


The word "theory" in scientific sense doesnt mean its not proven, thats just in everyday speech. What about relativity theory or electromagnetism theory? They are proven beyond doubt and still are called theories..

From Wiki:


The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.


Some fossils in some phylla are missing, but others are almost complete. Fossil formation is difficult and rare process, so it is expected. Therefore, the absence of some fossils doesnt prove evolution false. Even if we ignored all fossil evidence because of this alleged "imcompleteness", there are still lots of evidence in other science fields, like comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and biochemistry, which prove its true.

Regarding that "explosions of life" with no clear ancestor: en.wikipedia.org...

This also can explain sudden diversity exlplosions, but only after sexual reproduction has developed: en.wikipedia.org...

There are some unknowns regarding the EXACT mechanism of evolution of some concrete fauna, but the core of the evolution theory is proven.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Without meaning to sound rude, you don't seem to have a decent grasp of science.

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. No one claims that. What I am saying, and what science has proven, is that monkeys and apes (including humans) all have a common, relatively recent ancestor.

No evidence is missing. We have countless fossils demonstrating every aspect of evolution. Even without fossils, evolution still has been proved, simply by the fact that we now understand DNA and how it works. Couple that with the mathematical discipline of statistics, and we have everything we need to realise, on a broad scale, how evolution works.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which is more than a casual theory. What you call a theory in everyday use is, in scientific parlance, a hypothesis. Scientific theories have evidence supporting them, and no evidence contradicting them. The theory of Gravity is a theory, and yet I don't see you saying that's wrong.

No, there are no credible biologists out there who doubt evolution. None. Not a single one. All the evidence points to evolution, and none points elsewhere. For someone to not accept evolution, they first have to not accept the scientific method, which is mutually exclusive with being a scientist.

So the issue is not with evolution, but with your understanding of scientific terms, and the basics of the scientific principles you seem to take offence with.

(Also, it's not 'global warming' but 'climate change'. Climate change is not disputed anywhere, it's the cause of it which is disputed. Some claim it is natural, and some claim it is man-made (anthropogenic climate change)).



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 





In reguards to "climate change", that is a recent new term that replaced "global warming" since the whole "global warming" thing has been proven false.


Sigh. Wrong again. This is off topic, but...

"Climate change" INCLUDES "Global Warming" and other environmental changes going on, such as Ocean Acidification.

"Global Warming" has NOT been proven false, it has been CONFIRMED. It just isn't the whole picture, other climate effects are happening too.



[edit on 12/12/2009 by rnaa]





top topics
 
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join