Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Politics and Belief in Evolution and Global Warming


Buckfast 1

Politics and Belief in Evolution and Global Warming  

180 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Some claims were being in made in one of the other global warming threads about the percentages of various political groups that believe in global warming.

I'm curious to see how this poll would shake out in the FFA.

EDIT: For the purposes of this poll, consider the theory of global warming to mean climate change that is influenced and/or caused by human behavior ("AGW"). Also, don't consider any variables such as the cost-benefit analysis of enacting legislation to stop global warming. Just consider whether you believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

LATER EDIT: For the purposes of the poll, define global warming and evolution as the largest consensus of scientists would define the terms. The general definition of the terms as understood by the scientific community at large. That means that if you only believe in microevolution and not macroevolution, you should vote that you don't believe in evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming has occurred. That's unquestioned. We're in an interglacial - by definition it has to have occurred. I think you might want to refer to AGW to get the results that you are seeking, and probably more appropriately that global warming is predominantly the result of man's influence.

Once you do that, they we can really skewer the religious "nuts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say Global warming what do you mean?I believe that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles but I do not believe man is the reason for it.

I should clarify that.By referring to evolution and global warming, I mean the specific theories that are supported by the largest consensus of scientists. Thus, with regard to global warming, this would mean a theory of global warming that is influenced and/or caused by human behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can whoever voted liberal but don't believe in evolution explain yourself? Of the choices available, that seems like the strangest.

Member of the religious left. (and yes, there is a religious left. Many try to deny their existence, but they're out there.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

:lmao: Same here. There is a HUGE difference between myself and some off their rocker bible thumping "conservative". I chose believe in Evolotion, don't believe in man made global warming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say Global warming what do you mean?I believe that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles but I do not believe man is the reason for it.

I should clarify that.By referring to evolution and global warming, I mean the specific theories that are supported by the largest consensus of scientists. Thus, with regard to global warming, this would mean a theory of global warming that is influenced and/or caused by human behavior.
How do you know that most scientists believe in AGW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being rude , can our YEC guys answer for me whether:

1) You believe that there have been one or more ice ages?

2) If yes, when did they happen in relation to the biblical narrative?

That didn't take long at all. Kind of figured where this was headed...
Actually it is a hi-jack. I just find it odd that the same people that argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old argue about 10,000+ year climate cycles. Since this thread linked GW and Evolution, I just hoped that someone that believes this would fill in some gaps. I realize that I'm opening up that poster for potential ridicule so I posted my own beliefs in the spoiler box to be ridiculed myself. Are you someone that has the seemingly contradictory beliefs? (I don't keep a notebook, so sorry if this is a silly question based on your posting history.) If so, willing to take a stab at the questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian here - some issues Im conservative (smaller gov't, right to arms, not a nanny state) some I am more Liberal (social issues, need be SOME safety net)...

I believe there are significant man made influences on the environment. I do believe we are influencing climate change, and if I had to wager it would trend toward warming.

That said, all we can go off of is the information disseminated to us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to NOT look at this as an ideological and certainly not a political issue. It's a health, economic, survival and humanity issue and we should do what is necessary to get as unbiased a set of information about what is going on as can be, so we can make informed decisions.

I can say this - science has "known" a lot of things that are later proven to be wrong, we need to be cognizant of that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lean towards belief in global warming. I think it's obvious that man can change the environment. However like anything else in this world, I'm sure there is also a bit of media hype. You also never really know who to listen to.

Evolution is a loaded concept. I believe in God, that he created life and that he created independent life forms. However, I believe that he also created mechanisms for organisms to evolve, to a point.

I also don't believe the earth is 6-10,000 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean to believe in global warming?

Does this imply that if you believe in GW then you also believe that mankind is causing it? That mankind can do something to stop it? Or just that it is happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a conservative who believes the earth continually evolves and the climate is dynamic not static. Scientist don't have a clue what will happen and only prove what they want to prove.Look what they were saying in 1970. Look at the quotes from the first "Earth Day" to see the roots of this movement.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” • Life Magazine, January 1970 “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

I am 100% behind the world cleaning up its act but would like to see it done responsibly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being rude , can our YEC guys answer for me whether:

1) You believe that there have been one or more ice ages?

2) If yes, when did they happen in relation to the biblical narrative?

There was an interesting show on one of the channels like Historym Discovery or Planet (can't remember which) that speculated Eden was near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates but was flooded as sea levels rose during the current inter-glacial epoch. Global coastal flooding could be at the root of many Genesis stories, including Eden and Noah. That area would likely have had the climate for an Eden of a sort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being rude , can our YEC guys answer for me whether:

1) You believe that there have been one or more ice ages?

2) If yes, when did they happen in relation to the biblical narrative?

That didn't take long at all. Kind of figured where this was headed...
Actually it is a hi-jack. I just find it odd that the same people that argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old argue about 10,000+ year climate cycles. Since this thread linked GW and Evolution, I just hoped that someone that believes this would fill in some gaps. I realize that I'm opening up that poster for potential ridicule so I posted my own beliefs in the spoiler box to be ridiculed myself. Are you someone that has the seemingly contradictory beliefs? (I don't keep a notebook, so sorry if this is a silly question based on your posting history.) If so, willing to take a stab at the questions?
The Biblical Literalist won't answer, because all of our glacial evidence in their minds are the result of the Flood. Therefore, the answer from them will be No to the first question, making the second irrelevant.

The key, IMO is that about 2/3 of the conservatives believe in evolution, but not AGW. That mind be a bit of a shock to those who want to paint the right with a broad brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian here - some issues Im conservative (smaller gov't, right to arms, not a nanny state) some I am more Liberal (social issues, need be SOME safety net)...

I believe there are significant man made influences on the environment. I do believe we are influencing climate change, and if I had to wager it would trend toward warming.

That said, all we can go off of is the information disseminated to us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to NOT look at this as an ideological and certainly not a political issue. It's a health, economic, survival and humanity issue and we should do what is necessary to get as unbiased a set of information about what is going on as can be, so we can make informed decisions.

I can say this - science has "known" a lot of things that are later proven to be wrong, we need to be cognizant of that fact.

That is about the wisest thing yo have ever said....

In that regard evolution is based on fairly rock-solid facts that any of us can find and evaluate while AGW is entirely based on a predictive model that doesn't work. Now just because AGW is flawed (IMO fatalyy) doesn't mean that burning fossil fuel is that good for the planet, but then neither is building paved parking lots, or cities for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian here - some issues Im conservative (smaller gov't, right to arms, not a nanny state) some I am more Liberal (social issues, need be SOME safety net)...

I believe there are significant man made influences on the environment. I do believe we are influencing climate change, and if I had to wager it would trend toward warming.

That said, all we can go off of is the information disseminated to us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to NOT look at this as an ideological and certainly not a political issue. It's a health, economic, survival and humanity issue and we should do what is necessary to get as unbiased a set of information about what is going on as can be, so we can make informed decisions.

I can say this - science has "known" a lot of things that are later proven to be wrong, we need to be cognizant of that fact.

That is about the wisest thing yo have ever said....

In that regard evolution is based on fairly rock-solid facts that any of us can find and evaluate while AGW is entirely based on a predictive model that doesn't work. Now just because AGW is flawed (IMO fatalyy) doesn't mean that burning fossil fuel is that good for the planet, but then neither is building paved parking lots, or cities for that matter.

It's scary when we agree. I will add, it's foolish to think we are not doing some harm to the world - I mean, look at the mess man makes. However, it's just too early to know exactly what the effects are and Im far from expert enough to interpret what data we have.

One point of disagreement - Cities are not a bad thing. In fact, cities often provide the smallest eco-footprint per capita than any other way of life (more public transit, less land used, far more walking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian here - some issues Im conservative (smaller gov't, right to arms, not a nanny state) some I am more Liberal (social issues, need be SOME safety net)...

I believe there are significant man made influences on the environment. I do believe we are influencing climate change, and if I had to wager it would trend toward warming.

That said, all we can go off of is the information disseminated to us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to NOT look at this as an ideological and certainly not a political issue. It's a health, economic, survival and humanity issue and we should do what is necessary to get as unbiased a set of information about what is going on as can be, so we can make informed decisions.

I can say this - science has "known" a lot of things that are later proven to be wrong, we need to be cognizant of that fact.

That is about the wisest thing yo have ever said....

In that regard evolution is based on fairly rock-solid facts that any of us can find and evaluate while AGW is entirely based on a predictive model that doesn't work. Now just because AGW is flawed (IMO fatalyy) doesn't mean that burning fossil fuel is that good for the planet, but then neither is building paved parking lots, or cities for that matter.

It's scary when we agree. I will add, it's foolish to think we are not doing some harm to the world - I mean, look at the mess man makes. However, it's just too early to know exactly what the effects are and Im far from expert enough to interpret what data we have.

One point of disagreement - Cities are not a bad thing. In fact, cities often provide the smallest eco-footprint per capita than any other way of life (more public transit, less land used, far more walking)

Cities beget suburbs too (which are also bad, but not as bad as cities). I can think of a lot of reasons why cities are bad, both physically and psychologically, but that discussion should be taken into a separate thread, I think. Maybe when I'm done with meetings for the day, I'll start a thread on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarian here - some issues Im conservative (smaller gov't, right to arms, not a nanny state) some I am more Liberal (social issues, need be SOME safety net)...

I believe there are significant man made influences on the environment. I do believe we are influencing climate change, and if I had to wager it would trend toward warming.

That said, all we can go off of is the information disseminated to us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to NOT look at this as an ideological and certainly not a political issue. It's a health, economic, survival and humanity issue and we should do what is necessary to get as unbiased a set of information about what is going on as can be, so we can make informed decisions.

I can say this - science has "known" a lot of things that are later proven to be wrong, we need to be cognizant of that fact.

That is about the wisest thing yo have ever said....

In that regard evolution is based on fairly rock-solid facts that any of us can find and evaluate while AGW is entirely based on a predictive model that doesn't work. Now just because AGW is flawed (IMO fatalyy) doesn't mean that burning fossil fuel is that good for the planet, but then neither is building paved parking lots, or cities for that matter.

It's scary when we agree. I will add, it's foolish to think we are not doing some harm to the world - I mean, look at the mess man makes. However, it's just too early to know exactly what the effects are and Im far from expert enough to interpret what data we have.

One point of disagreement - Cities are not a bad thing. In fact, cities often provide the smallest eco-footprint per capita than any other way of life (more public transit, less land used, far more walking)

Cities beget suburbs too (which are also bad, but not as bad as cities). I can think of a lot of reasons why cities are bad, both physically and psychologically, but that discussion should be taken into a separate thread, I think. Maybe when I'm done with meetings for the day, I'll start a thread on this.
Sounds like a good thread. Because suburbs, imo, are far worse socially, long term economically, and certainly environmentally than Cities. Of course, having all of one at the expense of the other is not a good thing at all... but while we are on man made change to the environment and climate, suburban sprawl is a larger contributor than more urban areas.

Look forward to that thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being rude , can our YEC guys answer for me whether:

1) You believe that there have been one or more ice ages?

2) If yes, when did they happen in relation to the biblical narrative?

That didn't take long at all. Kind of figured where this was headed...
Actually it is a hi-jack. I just find it odd that the same people that argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old argue about 10,000+ year climate cycles. Since this thread linked GW and Evolution, I just hoped that someone that believes this would fill in some gaps. I realize that I'm opening up that poster for potential ridicule so I posted my own beliefs in the spoiler box to be ridiculed myself. Are you someone that has the seemingly contradictory beliefs? (I don't keep a notebook, so sorry if this is a silly question based on your posting history.) If so, willing to take a stab at the questions?
The Biblical Literalist won't answer, because all of our glacial evidence in their minds are the result of the Flood. Therefore, the answer from them will be No to the first question, making the second irrelevant.

The key, IMO is that about 2/3 of the conservatives believe in evolution, but not AGW. That mind be a bit of a shock to those who want to paint the right with a broad brush.

Again I don't have a notebook at all so I'm not going to call out individual posters based on my fuzzy memories of who is and who is not a Biblical Literalist and then posted something contradictory when they do it (if they exists), but if there are those that believe both I'm still curious as to how that is reconciled in the time line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I don't have a notebook at all so I'm not going to call out individual posters based on my fuzzy memories of who is and who is not a Biblical Literalist and then posted something contradictory when they do it (if they exists), but if there are those that believe both I'm still curious as to how that is reconciled in the time line.

What about a Biblical Literalist who doesn't believe the Bible implies the earth is only about 4000 years olds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my own opinion is that the Garden of Eden is a story that remembers when God's bounty of the fertile valleys of the last ice age are flooded by the rising seas from the melting ice as the last ice age ends. It is the tale of the transition from relying totally on God as a hunter-gatherer to man becoming self sufficient by growing and raising his own food, which results in the beginnings of civilizations. Original sin is thus abandoning God and becoming self sufficient.

There was an interesting show on one of the channels like Historym Discovery or Planet (can't remember which) that speculated Eden was near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates but was flooded as sea levels rose during the current inter-glacial epoch. Global coastal flooding could be at the root of many Genesis stories, including Eden and Noah. That area would likely have had the climate for an Eden of a sort.
I once heard that the transition from hunter-gatherer happened pretty much simultaneously around the world at the same time, roughly consistent with the aging of the earth used by those that accept Genesis 1-3 exactly as it happened. ("Pretty much" and "roughly" being plus or minus a few thousand years.) So I tried to reconcile those unintuitive ideas and eventually the flooding from the post ice age warming seemed like a good candidate. As I read more and more about this and mix in that Abraham and company were those struggling at a nomadic existence in the desert, the "anti-city" bias of Genesis, maybe even an "anti-civilization" bias to the Torah (as much as you want to use "civilized" for the neighboring cultures) and it all seems to fall into place to me. Maybe I'm way off. Maybe I'm trying too hard to fine "truth" in those text. Maybe I'm trying too hard to fine "truth" in the generally accepted science. Maybe that these implausible myths and legends in these ancient books (not just the bible's version) are "based on a true story" with a big dose of artistic license. For a rough analogy, kind of like a "based on a true story" movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I don't have a notebook at all so I'm not going to call out individual posters based on my fuzzy memories of who is and who is not a Biblical Literalist and then posted something contradictory when they do it (if they exists), but if there are those that believe both I'm still curious as to how that is reconciled in the time line.

What about a Biblical Literalist who doesn't believe the Bible implies the earth is only about 4000 years olds.
For this discussion you would have to reconcile your "literalist" beliefs with the Book of Chronicles (among others) to the 4004BC folks, but nothing to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiscally conservative, socially laizze faire, constitutionalist. I believe in evolution. I distinguish between this and questions or belief on the origin of life. I believe mankind has had some effect on our environment and has likely impacted climate, but whether the impact is measurable, noticeable, or catestrophic remains for me an open question, though I believe our impact to be less than do many. I do not believe in the God of the Bible, particularly as described or sold by evangelicals or other fundamentalists. I dig Jesus. Not so, many of his followers. I envy those who have the type of certitude that comes from epiphany. I envy those who have faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some claims were being in made in one of the other global warming threads about the percentages of various political groups that believe in global warming. I'm curious to see how this poll would shake out in the FFA.EDIT: For the purposes of this poll, consider the theory of global warming to mean climate change that is influenced and/or caused by human behavior ("AGW"). Also, don't consider any variables such as the cost-benefit analysis of enacting legislation to stop global warming. Just consider whether you believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

Do you mean micro or macro evolution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean micro or macro evolution?

Explain how the mechanics of micro and macro evolution are different. What does one do that the other doesn't?
Micro is small changes such as the length of beaks in birds. Micro is proven and there is no argument. Macro is goo to you via the zoo.

http://www.google.com/search?q=macro+or+micro+evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
I don't believe being socially liberal always equates to supporting entitlements. Most people who identify as socially liberal equate that with civil liberties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
Easy, I would get rid of the majority of them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean micro or macro evolution?

Explain how the mechanics of micro and macro evolution are different. What does one do that the other doesn't?
Micro is small changes such as the length of beaks in birds. Micro is proven and there is no argument. Macro is goo to you via the zoo.

http://www.google.com/search?q=macro+or+micro+evolution

You're asserting that they are different. Are the mechanisms for change in "micro" and "macro" evolution different? Do they act on populations differently? Are the mechanisms different on a genetic level?

How are they different, other than the base assertion that I'm inferring from you that species don't change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can whoever voted liberal but don't believe in evolution explain yourself? Of the choices available, that seems like the strangest.

Member of the religious left.
:blackdot: I didn't know that. Is this recent?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean micro or macro evolution?

Explain how the mechanics of micro and macro evolution are different. What does one do that the other doesn't?
Micro is small changes such as the length of beaks in birds. Micro is proven and there is no argument. Macro is goo to you via the zoo.

http://www.google.com/search?q=macro+or+micro+evolution

You're asserting that they are different. Are the mechanisms for change in "micro" and "macro" evolution different? Do they act on populations differently? Are the mechanisms different on a genetic level?

How are they different, other than the base assertion that I'm inferring from you that species don't change?

? :goodposting: ?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a..._0/evoscales_01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
Define "fiscal conservative". Here is the wikipedia description:

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

When I was learning the term "fiscal conservative" was much more synonymous with "fiscal responsibility" then the modern usage of "tax cuts solve all problems".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my own opinion is that the Garden of Eden is a story that remembers when God's bounty of the fertile valleys of the last ice age are flooded by the rising seas from the melting ice as the last ice age ends. It is the tale of the transition from relying totally on God as a hunter-gatherer to man becoming self sufficient by growing and raising his own food, which results in the beginnings of civilizations. Original sin is thus abandoning God and becoming self sufficient.

There was an interesting show on one of the channels like Historym Discovery or Planet (can't remember which) that speculated Eden was near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates but was flooded as sea levels rose during the current inter-glacial epoch. Global coastal flooding could be at the root of many Genesis stories, including Eden and Noah. That area would likely have had the climate for an Eden of a sort.
I once heard that the transition from hunter-gatherer happened pretty much simultaneously around the world at the same time, roughly consistent with the aging of the earth used by those that accept Genesis 1-3 exactly as it happened. ("Pretty much" and "roughly" being plus or minus a few thousand years.) So I tried to reconcile those unintuitive ideas and eventually the flooding from the post ice age warming seemed like a good candidate. As I read more and more about this and mix in that Abraham and company were those struggling at a nomadic existence in the desert, the "anti-city" bias of Genesis, maybe even an "anti-civilization" bias to the Torah (as much as you want to use "civilized" for the neighboring cultures) and it all seems to fall into place to me. Maybe I'm way off. Maybe I'm trying too hard to fine "truth" in those text. Maybe I'm trying too hard to fine "truth" in the generally accepted science. Maybe that these implausible myths and legends in these ancient books (not just the bible's version) are "based on a true story" with a big dose of artistic license. For a rough analogy, kind of like a "based on a true story" movie.
I think it is hard for those of us that live in more scientific times to completely understand the workings of a paleolithic or for that matter, even a pre-Rennaissance Medieval mind. In a world where the hand of God was responsible for every natural disaster as there was no understanding to the contrary, Genesis and Torah stories likely made sense to the people at the time. As to some of the literalist bent, there are enough clues in the Bible at least (my reading of the Torah was decades ago) to suggest that many at the time understood its parabolic nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
I don't believe being socially liberal always equates to supporting entitlements. Most people who identify as socially liberal equate that with civil liberties.
I'm sorry, I don't belive you have to be socially liberal to believe in civil liberties. I would describe myself as socially conservative in that I oppose entitlements or other government interference in our lives that is to me somewhere between quasi-constitutional and unconstitutional, yet I have no problem with gays having a contractual relationship equivalent to marriage. I don't have a problem with gays marrying if they can find a church that will marry them. BTW I think marriage should have two aspects: civil and religous (or spiritual if you prefer). The government should be involved only in the contractual side. Do you really want the governemnt endorsing your love for your SO?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean micro or macro evolution?

Explain how the mechanics of micro and macro evolution are different. What does one do that the other doesn't?
Micro is small changes such as the length of beaks in birds. Micro is proven and there is no argument. Macro is goo to you via the zoo.

http://www.google.com/search?q=macro+or+micro+evolution

You're asserting that they are different. Are the mechanisms for change in "micro" and "macro" evolution different? Do they act on populations differently? Are the mechanisms different on a genetic level?

How are they different, other than the base assertion that I'm inferring from you that species don't change?

I apologize if someone else has answered you and I'm duplicating, but let me give you an example: changes like lengths of bird beaks are relative minor compared to the evolution of species. It is likely a slight change in a few genes that occurs over several generations. In more primitive organisms like germs, it can be documented that this happens. We have even harnessed that to "evolve" new breeds of dogs, goats, cattle, etc.

There is no one who believes in evolution who does not acknowledge that modern apes, including man, evolved from the same ancestor. Yet man has 44 chromosome pairs while gorillas, chimps, and I believe orangutangs have 46. So at some point the process of evolution had to involve the breaking and reforming of our genetic makeup on a large scale, because at some point either humans lost two chromosomes through recombination (remember we are still 99% chimpanzee genetically, so we didn't just lose them), or our evolutionary cousins gained two through chromosome breakup. No matter how you look at it, at some point a mom had a different number of chromosomes than her daughter did.

Maybe the daughter could breed within the same species, maybe not, but somehow either that happened and daughter's recombination won out, or we had a bunch of progeny all mutating the same way at the same time, in a small enough area where the progeny could continue to reproduce and grow the population. The odds of that happening are pretty damn astronomical, especially given that this kind of thing has happened often throughout geologic time. I can understand where people outside of the scientific community could become doubters. As a geologist who has a fair grasp on the concept of geologic time, I know it blows me away that it does happen with regular frequency. I don't doubt that it happens, I just think we don't have all the pieces to that puzzle, especially when we use the qualifier "random" to describe mutation on a micro- level and then try to apply the same word at a macro- level. We have yet to see a separate higher species evolve by this process, at least that I am aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
I don't believe being socially liberal always equates to supporting entitlements. Most people who identify as socially liberal equate that with civil liberties.
I'm sorry, I don't belive you have to be socially liberal to believe in civil liberties. I would describe myself as socially conservative in that I oppose entitlements or other government interference in our lives that is to me somewhere between quasi-constitutional and unconstitutional, yet I have no problem with gays having a contractual relationship equivalent to marriage. I don't have a problem with gays marrying if they can find a church that will marry them. BTW I think marriage should have two aspects: civil and religous (or spiritual if you prefer). The government should be involved only in the contractual side. Do you really want the governemnt endorsing your love for your SO?
I see your point and you're right. The terms have become very muddled due to overuse (I admit I am guilty).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, so I voted for all of the moderate choices.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd be curious to know how a fiscal conservative would pay for all these liberal social programs.
Define "fiscal conservative". Here is the wikipedia description:

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

When I was learning the term "fiscal conservative" was much more synonymous with "fiscal responsibility" then the modern usage of "tax cuts solve all problems".
Frankly, I think that does describe the philosophy of most fiscal conservatives, but I think the message gets lost/simplified in our sound bite/short attention span world of broadcast media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...