What the hell are you talking about? Evolution is true. The problem with the climate crisis, AGAIN, is that these temperatures are changing over the course of hundreds of years (or less). Evolution is a process measured in MILLIONS of years. The idea that humans are going to evolve to survive climate change is ludicrous.
But you insist we would die. Either we would adapt, or we would die. That is exactly what Darwin's theories were all about. But there is no "climate crisis". And science says you are wrong that we will not evolve. We are evolving right now, that is a fact. Also it is a fact we have survived several ice ages and interglacials in the past. Something you keep ignoring. Hell, it is likely due to the last ice age that those that went into Europe adapted and evolved into a lighter colored group. And the farther north one goes, the lighter skinned humans become. The actual original homo sapiens were likely all very dark skinned. Once again, adaptation and evolution to surviving in a cold climate. However, I am not the one saying evolution is not true, you are. By the very statements you make. Once again, you prove that you do not know science at all. Evolution takes millions of years? Guess what cupcake, homo sapiens evolved less than 300kya. And we are actually the second in that lineage. Millions of years ago, you would have barely been able to tell a human from an ape. A species can evolve from one into something completely different in a couple of thousand years. Once again, your silly claims that it takes millions of years screams that you do not understand how things like this work at all. Humans, 1 million years ago. Humans, 2 million years ago. Humans, 3 million years ago. It is clearly obvious that you believe in a "static earth", and that nothing should ever change from how they are right now. Every statement you make screams that fact.
While I liked a different post of yours, in which you showed our "science-supporting" thread host, @Nwolfe35 , that he, in fact, did not even know what was the scientific view, which he supposedly without question, endorses, I think you are not basing this post, on fact. The let's say couple of dozen different "hominids," other than ourselves, were all differentiated, at a primitive stage, compared to modern man. As such, it would be impossible, with all the structural differences between them, to really determine that the one major difference, was our adaptation to warm weather. Most of those other hominids also developed in warm climates, so there seems no basis, for your speculation. Lastly, when we look at the world today, it is abundantly clear, that humans do not better thrive in the tropics, than they do in temperate zones.
So, the speed of light is a theory and 186,000 miles a second for the speed of light may be disproven any time in the future? So, Donald Trump is a crook (in your opinion) but that is a theory and may be disproven any time in the future? So, The Constitution being the law of the land in the US is a theory and may be disproven any time in the future?
Actually, our entire species evolved in hot climates. This we know from a great many things. Most spectacularly the large number of sweat glands that cover our body. An absolute necessity for a long distance hunting species that evolved to capture its prey not by fast ambush like most speed hunters but by running them down. Hell, why do you think the best marathon runners come from Africa? They are closest to our hunting ancestors. Also the darker skin coloring, once again an evolution advantage in a hot climate. Why do you think that remains the norm in those that live in hot climates, but not in those in cold climates? Those in colder climates evolved over time in the opposite way. Developing lighter skin as they did not need as much protection from UV light, and needed it in order to better absorb more vitamin D from sunlight. Humans are full of these little evolutionary changes. Many believe the eyefolds of those from Asia evolved as protection from the constant wind and dust when they still lived in the Asian steppes. Other groups of humans even saw island dwarfism. But the original "homo sapiens template"? Look to those groups still hunting tribally in Africa. Dark skins, tall slender bodies, able to run for hours on end to follow and kill their prey. Everything that came after was just an adaptation from that morel to succeed in another ecological niche. No one "better" than the other, that is all racist nonsense. But each evolving to suit where they settled after leaving Africa. And there is still some debate as to what to call our current species. "Homo sapiens" is the most commonly accepted for any starting around 300kya. However, many also support the name "homo sapiens sapiens" for current humans, starting around 150kya when our ancestors left Africa and started to evolve even more. Myself, I tend to support the latter as it is more inflective of the changes we made as a species into the large diversity seen today once we finally did leave Africa. But it all returns to the fact, we evolved in a hot and humid climate, our physiology screams it. If anything those that migrated north evolved to better handle the cold.
The most tested scientific theory is the Theory of relativity. The 2nd most tested? The Theory of Evolution.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. General relativity deals with how laws of gravitation relate to the universe. Special relativity deals with physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. Holy cow, you really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You just make something up then pull it all out of your arse. You really need to stop making things up, because it is obvious that is all you are doing. The Theories of Relativity (there are two of them) deal with gravity. Now gravity does affect light, but the theories are not about light. That only comes into play because like anything else in the universe, light can and is affected by gravity. And even that time was affected by gravity, something that was contrary to Newton's theories as he believe time was fixed and could not be changed. Hence, the "Gravity Lensing" that our long distance telescopes are using.
E=MC^2 is the most famous formula to come out of Special Relativity and sets the relationship between matter and energy and how that is related to the speed of light. You might want to take a science class or two before continuing the debate.
That is one formula, and it exists not because of C, but because of M. M is mass, and mass creates and is created by gravity. It is not a theory about light, it is a theory about mass. Stick to coloring books, please.
To say that E=MC^2 "exists because of M (mass)" is just wrong. It is the relationship between mass and energy. To accelerate a mass requires a force...that force is created by energy. When the object is accelerated part of that energy actually increases the mass of the object. At acceleration levels we experience in our day to day lives the amount of energy converted to mass is negligible. It's when the mass starts approaching the speed of light that the mass increase becomes large. This is also why the theory predicts that the speed of light is a hard limit on how fast an object with a rest mass can go. The larger the mass the more energy (force) that is needed to accelerate it. The closer to the speed of light you get the more massive the object and the more energy needed to accelerate it. Eventually the mass becomes so great that the energy needed to accelerate it becomes greater than the entire energy of the known universe. I never said that it was a theory about light...it's a theory about how the speed of light plays in the equating of mass and energy. If you go back to the original conversation I said the SPEED of light is the observation.
You said the theory was about light, it is not. It is about gravity. Light is only a part of it because it is affected by gravity. It is like saying the theory is about time. It is not, it is only a factor in it because time is affected by gravity. The theory is about gravity. Period.
1. I NEVER said that relativity is about light. I said that the observation that the speed of light is partially explained by it. 2. It's not only about gravity. That is PART of it. (Heck, before you said it was about mass care to make up your mind?). It's about connection between mass, energy and acceleration. The fact that acceleration is interchangeable with gravity is also part of it.
Sorry, that is the amazing thing about being able to quote people in here. They can not lie their way out of the BS they spewed in the past. The most that is discussed is that it is a constant and does not change. It only appears to change based upon our relation to the light.
Yes. Our immigration policy and the magnitude of our opposition to even THAT level is proof of our position on migration.
There are no facts in science only theories, sometimes laws. There are no facts in science only theories because theories can change. Take evolution for instance, in the 1930's with the advent of molecular biology, a possible mechanism of evolution was discovered, single nucleotide polymorphisms. And the theory of evolution changed again in 2005 with the discovery of horizontal gene transfer. The discovery of horizontal gene transfer showed how an organism could acquire a completely functional gene, hundreds to thousands of nucleotides long in a single generation. There are no facts in science-only theories.
If there are no facts in science-only theories, why did the CDC/NIH/WHO declare there were facts about the prevention of spread of Covid, for example?
I've posted this elsewhere but why did the CDC/NIH/WHO posit scientific facts about Covid transmissions, for example, when there were no scientific facts about Covid transmission?
Well if it is true whether or not people believe it, then why gnash teeth over the non-believers if it is the science that concerns you?
Nothing solid? How do you think LW radio signals are transmitted around the world? It's scientific fact that all gas atoms can interact with EM frequencies, no "supposedly" about it. This is how we discovered helium in the sun before it was found on Earth.
