View Single Post
Posts: 263 | Thanked: 77 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Sigtuna, Sweden
#101
Originally Posted by daperl View Post
I'm not saying the road wasn't bumpy and that there wasn't any luck involved, but when you routinely leave the atmosphere while at the same time having seemingly out of control population growth while already over 6.4 billion, can't we say we've reached some milestone?
Well, if we manage to slow down climate change, we might also have the strength do deal with an overlarge population and an overoverlarge use of the planet's resources.

If climate change beats us, well, a rising sea level will drown the main hubs of modern lifestyle, coastal cities (we might have time to move them), and drown the land where some billion people live.
Huge migrations, hunger times, (plagues), ... ??

Probably leading to many empty niches for evolution to step into.
And what about the next icetime(s), or will climate change be to big for it ?

Originally Posted by mullf View Post
- - -
There is no decision-making involved. Random mutations occur, and they and the individuals with those mutations either do well or do not do well due to the combination of the features of the individuals with the mutation and the environment that they live in. If they do well their numbers increase due to their survival, if not the opposite occurs. There is no decision-making to choose mutations or select mutations that have occurred for possible future environmental changes. The selection is due to the environment at the time. Now, certain changes might be helpful in different environments, but that is just dumb luck. If we are more adaptable than most, that is not due to some decision to make us so.
New research has reported that an individuals life experience to some degree influences how genes are triggered, and that some of that is saved to the next generation.
( Sorry about my vagueness, that's all I know about that.)