I'd like to make the hypotheses that Wodashin2 is a complete and utter idiot.
Please read the following evidence before responding.
wodashin2 wrote:We're related to hampsters in a very small way so small we'd have to go back millions of years.
At a certain point in evolution we eventually lose all connection, DNA etc, with other species. So technically, since we all grow over billions of years from the same beginning cell life, it doesn't mean we're technically related.
Global Warming doesn't exist because the glaciers have always been melting.
They melt, and they also refreeze. What's happening now is that the melting ice is making holes down to the bed rock, at a much faster rate than ever observed. Once there are enough holes in the ice it will eventually lube itself and slide off into the ocean raising sea level and also freezing the natural ocean currents putting eastern America and western Europe into an iceage.
They've melted everywheere but Greenland, Canada, and Russia.
If you knew anything at all you'd know that the reason why were are so worried is partly because they have started showing up in Greenland, something which is extremely rare.
So if a glacier melts in Canada it's nature taking it's role.
No, because humans caused it, and didn't prevent it, dummy.
If we are farther ahead than monkeys than we're more evolved since we'd be taking a step back if we put a baby with a gorrila couple.
If you read my fucking post you'd see I made careful to say 'learning curve'. If you've read any of this fucking thread instead of waltzing in here and being an arrogant fool, you'd know we're talking about possible potential. That chimps have the same potential as us to learn, but just not the capability to do so.
Also a fact is provable.
Like established facts such as the existence of global warming in excess never before recorded.
2 apples is more than one apple is a fact.
It's actually a mathematical concept. Scientific facts, more specifically, are things that we observe, directly or indirectly.
This is better than that is usually an opinion.
And we have adapted to almost all parts of the earth and we are more advanced.
Disputable. We are advanced only because of our capabilities, not intelligence or how evolved we are. The topic of this thread.
If we were stuck in a cage without any outside interferance guess what?
We'd die of starvation a little while after birth so think out your comments.
Are you an complete idiot? I obviously meant role reversal. If we were in the place of chimps we would be throwing are shit at them. The fact that they at us is not proof at all of their intelligence.
E85 is 3 + .1 = 3.1
Gasoline is 3 + 0 = 3
So E85 is worse and guess what!
After a while it would be worse.
First of all different methods of extracting Ethanol give different stats. The current
stats showing its slightly better. All of which is irrelevant because Ethanols main place in the world is as an alternative to Oil, as we are running out of it. The fact that it produces less C02 is just a perk. Look up ethanol states instead of making arbitrary claims that gas is better. Also your last statement made no sense. "E85 is worse. After a while it could still be worse." Kind of redundant ther'.
If we took all the farm animals on the planet and easured how much methane they gave off it would be more than all the cars.
Partially true. All the animals is more than just cows. It's the fact that all we need to do is reduce our car and factory emissions that is the point. For instance.
1 = amount of pollution produced by animals
.9 = amount by humans and cars.
1 = Factories etc
1 = other
Total = 3.9
2= amount of C02 our pre-global warming world could handle.
difference = 1.9.
Now imagine my made up numbers put to the real ones. We're obviously polluting to much for our natural world to handle and it's changing because of that. The imaginary number is currently rising but if we all do our part and cut back we can stabilize the climate change to something livable before it's to late.
It's been scientiffically studied.
With real jobs.
Why would scientists be needed to study simple statistics? Also you didn't address my point that the large amount of gas producing animals in this world is directly our fault via rising population and higher demand. Whether or not either of us is correct on this point its still evidence in my favour.
Unlike the Save the Earth scientists who said, 10 years earlirer, "OH NOES!! IT"S TEH ICE AGE EVRYBODY!!! SAVE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!"
You're an absolute idiot. No one. NO ONE, in the scientific community denies global warming. Absolutely fucking no one. It's the large numbers who debate how large our c02 emissions are effecting it, and even then it's still the majority of scientists who think humans are the primary cause. If all you need for evidence is the support of the scientific community then your arguement is working against you.
I think intelligence is part of evolution because what is there to gain by being "Evolved" if there is nothing to judge by?
Our brains evolved yes, Obviously. So has our intelligence. That doesn't mean we're more evolved.
Oh and that article is bias.
So are almost ALL articles.
But DNA tests and statistics aren't biased. If you new anything about anything at all you'd know just because we are more civilized on earth, and just because we control the world, doesn't make us more evolved.
The media is ALWAYS bias on politics.
Most newspaper articles are also bias.
Irr-fucking-erelvant. What is this, non-sequitur hour? This has nothing to do with anything. Scientists normally don't have agendas. They choose to report the facts and the facts only. The facts, which are proven as you kindly pointed out, say that we're less evolved.
So a friggin article proves nothing but someone thinks something because something does something different than something else.
You're opinion is that the article is false. My opinion is that it's true. The truth is that facts are truths and since the article is based on facts and tests, then yes, whether you agree with it or not, it's true.
It's all really opinion but we should eb the most evolved since the monkeys haven't taken over the world.
Obviously you don't know the definition of evolved. It just means more refined and developed. Neither have anything to do with control of the globe. Squids have much more evolved eyes than ours and they don't control the world.
I say dominant speceis is prolly the more evolved one.
You have absolutely no reason to think that. You are an inane pseudo-intelligent asshat who knows nothing at all about the simple word evolved. If bunny rabbit over populated so much that they spread over the world, spreading diseases that kill off all humans, it doesn't make them more evolved. It makes them dominate. Complete irrelevant to the word evolved. I feel like I'm talking to a 3rd grader here.
Technically, Mushrooms are more evolved thus meaning mushrooms are our overlords.
Being the complete idiot you are you've disproved you're previous statement.
"we should eb the most evolved since the monkeys haven't taken over the world."
"Technically, Mushrooms are more evolved thus meaning mushrooms are our overlords."
If you've noticed mushrooms don't run the world, thus making you're "Evolved = control" theory utterly stupid!
Congratulations! You've managed to make an entire idiot out of yourself by not addressing the article at all, dismissing everything we've said in the last 4 pages, and denying established scientific fact. I hope you're happy; Your kids will most likely grow up to be retarded.