How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Has there been a single man-made global warming hypothesis that has become a scientific theory or law?[/quote]

The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is quite a bit of evidence supporting global climate change. Do you recognize the theory of evolution?[/quote]

Influenced by humans or nature?[/quote]

Anthropocentric. [/quote]

Nonsense. There never was a preponderance of scientists on the anthropogenic side. Phony stats were used to give the appearance of consensus. See the 97% lie. And now more scientists are jumping ship every day. The latest awakening:

482

Weather Channel co-founder: ?There is no climate crisis?

483

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Weather Channel co-founder: ?There is no climate crisis?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/weather-channel-co-founder-there-is-no-climate-cri/[/quote]

First, there is a difference between meteorology and climatology. Global climate change falls exclusively in the purview of climatologists. Second, John Coleman is neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist, but a weatherman. He studied journalism, and has no formal training in the earth sciences.

484

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Weather Channel co-founder: ?There is no climate crisis?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/weather-channel-co-founder-there-is-no-climate-cri/[/quote]

First, there is a difference between meteorology and climatology. Global climate change falls exclusively in the purview of climatologists. Second, John Coleman is neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist, but a weatherman. He studied journalism, and has no formal training in the earth sciences.[/quote]

Al Gore got a degree in government, yet crowned himself the godfather of Global Warming.

His predictions turned out to be so far off he should be laughed off the stage.

485

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Weather Channel co-founder: ?There is no climate crisis?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/weather-channel-co-founder-there-is-no-climate-cri/[/quote]

First, there is a difference between meteorology and climatology. Global climate change falls exclusively in the purview of climatologists. Second, John Coleman is neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist, but a weatherman. He studied journalism, and has no formal training in the earth sciences.[/quote]

The problem with “climatology” is that dispelling the myth of anthropogenic climate change constitutes an existential threat to climatology as a discipline. 99% of the funding climate scientists receive is on the basis of the perceived threat of anthropogenic climate change. If man is not significantly influencing the climate then the vast majority of climatologists will be redundant. You can’t really expect that they are going to find proof of their own redundancy on mass. It would be tantamount to a parapsychologist proving that telepathy and psychokinesis don’t exist. All you’re likely to get is a handful of “defectors” who shed light upon the inner workings of the cabal.

The history of climatology as a discipline reflects its dependence upon AGW:

"Until the middle of the 20th century, the discipline of climatology was a stagnant field…The study of climate change was only an occasional interest of individuals who worked in divergent ways, and scarcely knew of one another’s existence…

But the dozen or so scientific disciplines that had something to say about climate were largely isolated from one another. In the 1960s and '70s, worries about climate change arose and began to push the diverse fields into contact. Scientists interested in climate change kept their identification with different disciplines but increasingly developed ways to communicate across the boundaries, for example in large international projects. Around the turn of the 21st century the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change institutionalized an unprecedented process of exchanges; its reports relied especially on computer modeling, which became a center of fully integrated interdisciplinary cooperation…

Source:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm

So now we get a glimpse into what “climatology” really is. It’s a label for a scientist, who could come from just about any field associated with the natural sciences who believe in anthropogenic climate change. If you’re not a believer then you’re not a climatologist; you’re merely a meteorologist or an oceanographist.

486

Essentially, dismissing someone on the grounds that they’re not a climatologist is tantamount to dismissing a physicist’s view on telekinesis on the grounds that they’re not a parapsychologist.

487

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

488

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Essentially, dismissing someone on the grounds that they’re not a climatologist is tantamount to dismissing a physicist’s view on telekinesis on the grounds that they’re not a parapsychologist. [/quote]

John Coleman studied journalism. He is not a scientist, much less one in a field relevant to the discussion. How is disqualifying the opinion of a weatherman inappropriate?

489

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Essentially, dismissing someone on the grounds that they’re not a climatologist is tantamount to dismissing a physicist’s view on telekinesis on the grounds that they’re not a parapsychologist. [/quote]

John Coleman studied journalism. He is not a scientist, much less one in a field relevant to the discussion. How is disqualifying the opinion of a weatherman inappropriate?[/quote]

I was speaking generally; not just about this specific case. If you’re going to argue on the grounds of scientific consensus then you can’t just take climatologists into consideration. That would be tantamount to arguing there is a scientific consensus that telekinesis is real based upon the views of parapsychologists. And consensus is not sufficient grounds anyway.

490

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.

491

Could you please explain how the first single-celled organism came into being spontaneously with the necessary genetic coding to reproduce, create/acquire energy, grow enough so that it doesn’t replicate itself into nothing and surround itself in a protective covering so that the forces of nature didn’t have the time or ability to destroy it before combining all of the necessary systems in place required for life?

492

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?

493

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

The adaptive process is not blind chance. Environmental change is the driving force behind evolution.

494

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change?

495

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.

496

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change? [/quote]

That’s a funny question coming from you in light of this recent exchange:

cwill1973 wrote:
Has there been a single man-made global warming hypothesis that has become a scientific theory or law?

Bismark wrote:
The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is quite a bit of evidence supporting global climate change. Do you recognize the theory of evolution?

497

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.[/quote]

Can you answer my question from above?

498

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Could you please explain how the first single-celled organism came into being spontaneously with the necessary genetic coding to reproduce, create/acquire energy, grow enough so that it doesn’t replicate itself into nothing and surround itself in a protective covering so that the forces of nature didn’t have the time or ability to destroy it before combining all of the necessary systems in place required for life?[/quote]

I posed a question of my own at the end of my substantive post above. You only responded with an erroneous understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, which I will address when I have time this weekend.

499

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.[/quote]

Can you answer my question from above?
[/quote]

That question is essentially, “How could abiogenesis have happened?” I hope you understand that I am not going to spend the next few months walking through half a century of scientific work on the subject. Of course, if you are actually interested, choose a few of the most reputable scientific journals and search them. You will find thousands of pages, written by the very most competent of scientific minds, awaiting your perusal.

Now, I will happily accept the same sort of answer in response to my question. Send me anywhere – send me [i]to a Wikipedia page[/i] – that specifically evidences and/or suggests the mere possibility of the claim that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

500

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Could you please explain how the first single-celled organism came into being spontaneously with the necessary genetic coding to reproduce, create/acquire energy, grow enough so that it doesn’t replicate itself into nothing and surround itself in a protective covering so that the forces of nature didn’t have the time or ability to destroy it before combining all of the necessary systems in place required for life?[/quote]

I posed a question of my own at the end of my substantive post above. You only responded with an erroneous understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, which I will address when I have time this weekend.