Scientists are also biassed. By the gun pointed at them by the US government.

A lot of italian scientists are agree with climate change fact.
Maybe italian governament are with gun pointed at them.

Every scientist, in the world, are threatened by their governaments!!

It's a big cospirancy!!!

Bad analogy. You cannot tell what the frame of reference is. But you can tell what the weather is like.

The analogy is perfect. You use your senses and your intuition.
And it's WRONG.

(And you don't understand the difference between weather and clime).

It shows you have a 50% chance of being wrong.

It shows you have no idea of what science is

I made a terrible typo.

What I meant was I would NEVER deny that evolution was accepted science. I'm an anthropologist ferchrissake. I used to teach this stuff.

I am certainly no reliigous nut. I have no religion at all.

No, they won't. By the time the climate changes again, they will be extinct or in such low numbers as not to have a suficient gene pool for a viable population.

What is now England was once a part of Europe. Sea level then was 300 feet lower than it is today (The Florida coastline then extended 80 miles further out into the Gulf of Mexico.) England used to be connected to Europe, butwater built up by glacial ice melt caused a flood that washed away the land bridge that connected England to Europe and resulted in the English Channel. England was inhabited 40,000 years ago That's why Neanderthal remains have been found in England.

That is not what you said. What you said was there was nothing complicated about evolution. But the reality of it is much more nuanced. You don't believe in nuance.

In evolutionary terms, it doesn't matter whether you survive the virus or not if your genes are not passed to the next generation.

And the virus probably does not die out. It mutates to different strains, as was observed in the past several years.

The fact that you so far have not contracted the virus could just be a matte of luck or non-exposure. You may get it yet.

Contrary to your belief, the vaccines are proven to be effective.

True, some people got the vaccine and got COVID anyway. But it is proven that those who get the virus after being vaccinated are less likely to require hospitalization, are much less sick and recover faster.

Look at the stats from the USA in 2020. Most of those who died were Trump-following Republicans.

By technology, I mean the ability to make stone tools with which to hunt prey and make clothing from their skins to protect us from cold, the ability to make fire, build homes, grow crops. Those are technologies enabled by culture that have allowed humans to inhabit every place on earth, even to survive the arctic at the end of the ice age.

Only Donald Trump think is not.

Well, Donald Trump is not the only one who rejects the idea of climate change. Don't forget all the oil, gas and coal corporations, the entire Repubican party in the USA and evangelical religious fanatics.

Strange. In this list there aren't scientists.
Oh, no, it's not strange.

I prefer reality to what others tell me. I've looked at the actual stats. I've walked outside. Nothing's changed.

I also prefer reality.
Every day i walk outside and see the sun running trought the sky and all thing stable on the earth.
So, the earth is at rest and the sun revolves around it. And Copernicus was wrong!!

Half of Americans voted for him.

Wow, that's science!!!

Then Spain wouldn't be able to grow food.

Do you think looking out your window and seeing the same thing you saw 45 years ago will give you a true picture of what is happening in the wider world? Maybe your window is not near an ocean where it would be threatened by rising seawater.

Maybe it's not in a hurricane-prone area.

Maybe it's not in an area that has had no rain in two years.

45 ys are nothing.

And yes, climate change is a SCIENTIFIC fact.

Only Donald Trump think is not.

You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.

2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits.

When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.

New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment.

Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

[quote]Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.

The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly.

Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish

Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough.

We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.

What next, 2+2 is really 5?

I Try that one when working out my productivity/bonus payments ,
The accounts department just won`t have it , hmff
But with government mish maths its `just another day at the office`

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed.

Your method of deterining the chances of contracting COVID considers deaths among the global population, at random.

But the spread of COVID was not rabdom. It was concentrated among those who did not receive the vaccines,

I saw hundreds of these, people bravely refusing vaccination, saying the giovernment was taking away their freedom. A few days later, they would post that the contracted COVID, but would be healed by some magic potion that Trump and others promoted.-- bleach, detergent, Chloroquine, horse worm medication.

As for your claim that COVID "Did Little Harm," you must be joking. Hundreds of restaurants, stores, small buisinesses, manufacturing companies were forced out of business because of it. The entire supply chain for almost everything was disrupted. The global economy was in a slump. The effects are still being felt, but the world is slowly coming out of it.

You also had it wrong when you spoke of natural selection and the "survival of the fittest."

I always have HT on , but my 48 cpu/thread system seems to run smoother when run at "use 99% of cpu`s"
even when there are not two gpu`s also needing cpu time .

Does rosetta run faster with or without hyperthreading?

The difference between you and me is where you place the danger line. If you were told there was a disease that was going to wipe out 50 people worldwide, you wouldn't get the vaccine. Chances are you'd never catch it. What number would you place on predicted worldwide deaths before you get the vaccine? Covid is 1 in 1000. A 1 in 1000 chance of death is not enough to concern me.

Your claimed mortality rate is the ratio of total deaths divided by total world population.

The correct way to calculate a mortality rate is to use the total number of resolved cases as the divisor; 6.8 million people died from Covid-19 out of 680 million cases worldwide, which is a mortality rate of 1% -- rather large, as far as flu-like diseases go.

No, that's the wrong way. My way includes the chances of catching it. All I need to know is the chances of me dying vs. the chances of me not dying. Not dying includes both recovering from it and not catching it in the first place. So 0.1%. Low enough I don't actually know anyone who's died of it. However I know about 50 who recovered, some of them twice, the twice ones all having had the vaccine and still getting it just as bad or worse! What are we up to now, 5 doses? It isn't working!

P.S. those who recovered are the healthier ones, so the next generation will be stronger.

Your way does not make any statement at all about the chances of becoming infected. There is a very real difference between the rate of infection and the mortality rate, and no statistical manipulation will ever show otherwise.

In using the total population to calculate the mortality rate, you are assuming that 100% of the total population has been exposed to the virus.

As for why the vaccines "aren't working", you ignore the fact that there are many variants of SARS-COV-2 out there now, but the vaccines currently in use were designed to combat the initial strain. It is thus no surprise to anyone (or at least should not be) that the effectiveness of the vaccine has declined.

Finally, viruses do mutate significantly, and rapidly, so each new strain becomes something new as far as the immune system is concerned. The best the next generation of humans can hope for is that their immune systems might be slightly more capable of fighting off an infection from one of those new strains.