Discovery Earth: Ready, Set, Evolve!
March 02, 2009
Oops. Never separate puppies and then try to record a video. Lesson learned...
Here are the links to this week's special Rapid Evolution content:
It's quicker than you think. Get the inside scoop on some of the startlingly quick-evolving species that scientists are finding all over the world -- and why the beasts are changing so fast...
Snake researcher Rick Shine chats about what might be the greatest evolutionary experiment in the world. It's an accident that never stops...
James Williams explores just how far apart humans and chimpanzees have evolved by asking the question: Could you make a human-chimp hybrid? Find out more, if you dare...
Hybrid animals and plants are on the rise. They can be both a creative and a destructive force in evolution. Should they be embraced or stopped?
First there was the bushy evolutionary tree of life put forth by Darwin, but a better understanding of the fossil record and contemporary evolution has revealed the "tree" to have fewer gentle "y" branchings and more right-angled saguaro-cactus-like jumps. The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium makes sense of it all.
Hi Larry,
Do you believe that evolution and other natural earth processes are just the sum total of many macro- and micro- mechanical (i.e. "dumb") natural processes? Or do you believe that nature has a certain degree of intelligence which supports life processes such as evolution, biological molecular transport, etc? Or do you not take a position on this?
Posted by: Cliff Lucas | March 04, 2009 at 04:08 AM
Hi Cliff. Been a very long time. Great to hear from you!
As for your excellent question, I find it difficult to answer because you ask what I "believe" about a matter that is not a matter of belief. It's a matter of following the evidence. The evidence shows no intelligent intervention in evolution (if that is what you mean by "a certain degree of intelligence"). In fact it shows quite the opposite: ample biological inefficiencies that only makes sense when seen in the light of evolutionary theory (or a seriously inept "designer").
But if you are asking a larger question about whether I believe there is an underlying intelligence to the universe itself, I'd say yes. I tend to believe that. But like all beliefs, it is just a filler for what I don't know. It's pure speculation, not very important and probably wrong or at least a grotesque oversimplification. Just human folly.
Posted by: Larry O'Hanlon | March 04, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Larry, Thank you for responding to my post on AGW without much of the name calling that is so prevalent on this subject. I don't claim to be the one person in the world that has figured things out, nor did I claim there is a conspiracy concerning AGW. I will say however, that there are very troubling aspects to this theory, particularly from the leaders of the carbon cap movement. On what other scientifically "settled" subject are the proponents unwilling to make their case in a large public forum, sitting across the table from respected scientists who disagree with their theory? Why did they declare that the debate is over and the science proven? When did the debate occur? I'm not claiming conspiracy, I only seek reason. Let's actually engage in a logical and reasoned discourse. As to your citing of 10,000 scientists as adding weight to the argument, numbers and consensus don't make science, facts and research do. But if we are talking numbers, to date 31,478 scientist, including nearly 10,000 with P.H.D.'s have signed a petition disagreeing with the science of AGW, check out petitionproject.org. Would you cite your source for the statement that the overwhelming majority of climate researchers agree that AGW is real Those who question and poke holes in this theory (as all scientists are supposed to do to theories) have almost nothing to gain by doing so. In fact, they are often putting their careers on the line, particularly if they work for government. These are huge decisions we are making by artificially increasing the price energy on the planet. The truth is that it will be the poorest on the planet that will suffer most by these policies. Why is it playing out this way?
Posted by: Eric Oathes | June 09, 2009 at 01:53 AM
Eric, you can't be serious. If you are in any way following the scientific literature then you know that the debate has been going on for at least 30 years and that it is settled. The remaining anti-climate change crowd is, therefore, ignoring the research as well as the scientific debate that is OVER. This is no different than the folks who claim that evolution is still highly speculative. It isn't. As for what anti-global warning "scientists" have to gain from their arguments, I have yet to meet one that is not supported by a big oil company or similar entity that wants nothing to do with carbon caps and trade. So these people have ample motivation to ignore the science. On the other hand, the majority of the scientific community has nothing to gain by global warming. Nobody gains from global warming. That's why it's called an Inconvenient Truth.
Posted by: Larry O'Hanlon | June 09, 2009 at 10:13 AM