Theory of Evolution

[Foamhead]

Evolution is not totally random. Unfortunately the subject is far too complex to just "gloss over" on a web forum. People interested in the subject would do well to look up subjects like punctuated equilibrium, abiogenesis, natural selection.

 

 

The statement that we have never seen life evolve into new forms of life is incorrect as speciation has been observed in nature in plants and some lower life forms. Speciation is when one lifeform is no longer able to breed with it's original genetic decendents and therefore is now it's own species of life. If anyone would like examples I will try and post some.

 

 

Evolution is an observed and tested theory and the only people who still deny it occurs are religious fundamentalists who have a psychological and spiritual stake in it being untrue.

[213374U]

Are you really suggesting that burning fossil fuels has not significant effect on the Earth?

The burning of fossil fuels has other (read: nastier) effects than greenhouse effect and those are not caused by CO2. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides are more chemically active than CO2 and are responsible for acid rain, for instance. Not to mention metal emissions. But none of that has anything to do with the greenhouse effect or the possible relation between human activity and global warming.

 

Also, there was a thread here about this very topic a few weeks (months?) that provided some interesting calculations about the possible effects of CO2 emissions and global warming. I'd suggest you read it. As for the accuracy of such calculations, judge for yourself.

 

 

Cutting down the jungles, like the Amazon, and burning the wood for heat, is one of the major issues to solve. I dred to think of northern South America looking like Saharan Africa, to say nothing of the impact on the globe.

Agreed. However with the destruction of tropical rainforests, the level of CO2 would increase regardless of what we did.

[cewekeds]

People aren't alerted to stay inside because of high carbon dioxide levels.

 

There's much worse stuff emitted into the air than carbon dioxide.  That smoky haze you see in big cities, is NOT carbon dioxide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stiil made from cars and things that use fossile fuel.

 

I think humans are a bit arrogant to think we are having as much influence as we claim to have over the climate. Weather has been doing wierd **** for millenia.

 

I think humans are arrogant to think we can't have *unknown* or bad effect on the weather.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem now that is only going to get worse has their head in the sand.

Who said anything about cutting down the jungles and the dumping of toxic substances? That's obviously a problem but it is not what is being debated here since it has nothing to do with the possible adverse efect of greenhouse gas emissions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cutting down the jungles is directly related to CO2 increases because they help purge the stuff through photosynthesis. I brought up the other stuff because by focussing so much on CO2 it's easy to forget the bucketloads of mercury, lead, and other fun stuff we're letting loose. It all comes down to us messing up this planet.

[213374U]

So the reason are different because there so much carbon dioxide its hard to breath oxygen. But Keep telling your self that we can still use fuel that is very bad and companies will avoid research for cleaning burning fuel or ways to get away from oil altogether.

So what? People with lung problems shouldn't live in the centre of badly polluted cities. For the rest of us that don't have such problems, there's nothing wrong with increased levels of CO2. Sorry, but no. CO2 is not making the air unbreathable.

 

 

Stiil made from cars and things that use fossile fuel.

That is not what's being discussed, but thanks for pointing out a totally irrelevant fact.

 

 

Cutting down the jungles is directly related to CO2 increases because they help purge the stuff through photosynthesis. I brought up the other stuff because by focussing so much on CO2 it's easy to forget the bucketloads of mercury, lead, and other fun stuff we're letting loose. It all comes down to us messing up this planet.

I already admitted that rainforest destruction is a problem. But that is not directly related to the use of fossil fuels. And as for the other stuff, the purity of the fossil fuels is being increased every day. Better filters are being produced. Since most of the toxic byproducts of those combustions are produced by the oxidation of impurities, that is a problem that is being worked on. However, CO2 emissions can't be reduced if we are to use fossil fuels.

[metadigital]

Are you really suggesting that burning fossil fuels has not significant effect on the Earth?

The burning of fossil fuels has other (read: nastier) effects than greenhouse effect and those are not caused by CO2. Sulphur and nitrogen oxides are more chemically active than CO2 and are responsible for acid rain, for instance. Not to mention metal emissions. But none of that has anything to do with the greenhouse effect or the possible relation between human activity and global warming.

 

Also, there was a thread here about this very topic a few weeks (months?) that provided some interesting calculations about the possible effects of CO2 emissions and global warming. I'd suggest you read it. As for the accuracy of such calculations, judge for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I be interested to read that thread: any term I can search for (or just "CO2"? ).

 

Actually methane is pretty dangerous, being a factor of 21 times more significant, not to mention NO2 (310 times CO2), HFC-23 (a 11,700 GWP), and SF6 and something called trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride which I don't know much about. HydroFluorocarbons are significant because the UK, for one, has a mountain of old refrigerators (that they are now paying large EU penalties for) that haven't been environmentally managed. And again, China is the largest user of CFCs.

 

But, I am an optimist, I think we'll find some way to circumvent the dire climate issues (and then charge the developing world for the expense " ).

[WITHTEETH]

This is a bit off topic, what do you guys think happens when oour bodies die? what do you think happns to conciousness? it goes away but the particles do not die. what do you think can happen? do you think that conciousness can ever come again? I beleive we are all interconnected also in a subatomic world.

 

do you think we ALL share the SAME consciousness? that we all live, on and on and on, as one, even in death?

[metadigital]

You're right, that's way off-topic.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You're right, that's way off-topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But interesting, though. Why don't you post it as a separate topic?