Is Climate Change Theory incompatible with Evolution?

Question

Climate Change Theory (CCT) basically says that the world’s ecological patterns are changing rapidly now and people are the primary cause. Depending on who you source there are variations within it as to the degree of change and the degree of responsibility people have.

Evolutionary Theory (ET) says (in regards to the Earth) that the Earth has gone through a great number of climate shifts throughout its history. Some have been big and catastrophic (the whole Earth being covered with ice) while some have been relatively minor (the recent ice ages and the warming periods in-between them). The point is that ET says that dramatic and sometimes abrupt ecological changes are a natural part of what the Earth does. They happened long before people were here and they will happen long after we’re gone.

Answer 1

No real argument other then origin of H2O which has been link to meteorites. Like I was really around when that happen? If your into biology most of the laws predispose dramatic effects. Natural selection can be observed in as little as three days using background radiation as the prompt. Even with GM organisms the reversion process will take them back to the point of originality. This has been noted with studies on yeast.  In essences the question remains evolution-vs-devolution/regression. The dominate gene will be the one to survive. This has already happen without any outside influences.

Obviously you don't understand your own question.

Answer 2

Yes, this is the "Man is part of nature, therefore everything he does is natural" theory.

True, and maybe even inevitable, but it doesn't solve any of our problems.

Answer 3

To some extent, what you infer is correct.  As climate changes, species will evolve or die.  Don't think that the theory of climate change really deals directly with species evolution though - just the warming of the earth because of the increase in greenhouse gases and land surface changes, and the resulting impacts on climate.

The problem is the extremely rapid pace of change is something beyond what they Earth has experienced in millions of years if it has ever been this fast.  We are not worried about species extinctions solely for the sake of saving the life of warm fuzzy critters.  It is really more about the health of the underlying ecosystems.  These systems determine if the human species can thrive on the planet (thrive is not equal to survive).  Rapid, sudden extinctions may indicate extreme ecosystem shifts that can threaten human well being.  This could be a big deal if it happens, and it may not be reversible.  Many people (1,000s, 10,000s, 100,000s, 1,000,0000s 1,000,000,000s) could suffer.  We are more uncertain about who will suffer, when they will suffer, and how they will suffer than we are about climate change.

We already know that global warming cannot be stopped.  Even if we control almost all of the change caused by human activity, we cannot control natural variation.  The idea is to slow the rate of  change to give time for the earths system to adjust so that we can be sure the minimal number of people suffer adverse effects.  This is the only way we have to minmize effects to the system at this point.

Answer 4

I certainly do think they are compatable...if we don't do anything to stop global warming, and humans and many other species die off, then eventually (over millions of years), through evolution, the niches that the extinct species filled will be refilled with new species.  But the thing is, that I don't actually want humans to go extinct (I don't want to be the cause of other species to go extinct either).  So stopping climate change is really in our own self interest.

Answer 5

Regardless of why the climate is changing - rapidly enough to make it uncomfortable at best for "us" - the fact of the matter is... that it is changing.

So humans and all creatures must adapt or perish.

Where's the so called incompatability?  I just don't see it.  It's hard not to get caught up in the political rhetoric surrounding these issues.

Answer 6

I believe that the world does see climate variances over the years and sometimes these periods of time can be 10-20 years or more.   There is strong evidence of a climate change, as it were,  but is this manmade?  The book is still out.   What isn't really negotiable is that we pollute the air a lot and it is having an adverse effect on our bodies.  Things like asthma and ephasema. And these effect children and the elderly the most.

But I believe they may be two different things.   Below is a site to the global warming conference in NYC this year and pay attention to Dr Singer.  This is good stuff.

Answer 7

Do you want your species to survive and thrive?  If your answer is yes, then you can understand why climate change theory is NOT incompatible with evolution.

You could say killing humans from other families in your fight for food is natural, but that doesn't mean it's desirable.  It's far better to use the great intellectual capacity we have developed (through millenniums of evolution) to aid our species (i.e. grow enough food for all) and work toward keeping our environment in a state that is conducive for our own existence and enjoyment.

Answer 8

very true we're all been taught in school about Darwinism basically adapt or die so i mean it is very plausible that eventually some of us will adapt if global warming happens or global cooling whichever

but i guess u could also argue that this so called climate change is man-made instead of a natural if u do believe in both i mean there is no way to completely prove if its natural or man made