> To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science.
Plenty of creatures survive in the arctic. Plenty of creatures survive in the desert. Few creatures survive when you subject them to twice-daily 80°C changes of temperature.
Selection pressures reduce (local) genetic variation. If the selection pressures remain high (i.e. members of a species aren't well-adapted to their environment) then you'll burn through the available genetic variation, you'll run out of individuals, and then the species will go locally extinct.
Evolution isn't magic that “science” discovered. It's a consequence of lower-level rules. You can't reason about many scientific discoveries without reductionism; it seems like you're treating evolution as a Fundamental Law of Nature, when it's more like a non-axiomic property of certain mathematical systems, arising under certain conditions (but not others) in the real world.
> Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
Okay… but that's because the environment after those kinds of nuclear catastrophe isn't actually all that different to the environment that those creatures are adapted to. (That's the once-surprising part.)
Disagree? What adaptions do the plants and animals in those exclusion zones exhibit, and how is that analogous to what would be needed for the situation described in the article?
> Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing.
Your car is always oxidising. https://xkcd.com/1693/
> To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science.
Plenty of creatures survive in the arctic. Plenty of creatures survive in the desert. Few creatures survive when you subject them to twice-daily 80°C changes of temperature.
Selection pressures reduce (local) genetic variation. If the selection pressures remain high (i.e. members of a species aren't well-adapted to their environment) then you'll burn through the available genetic variation, you'll run out of individuals, and then the species will go locally extinct.
Evolution isn't magic that “science” discovered. It's a consequence of lower-level rules. You can't reason about many scientific discoveries without reductionism; it seems like you're treating evolution as a Fundamental Law of Nature, when it's more like a non-axiomic property of certain mathematical systems, arising under certain conditions (but not others) in the real world.
> Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
Okay… but that's because the environment after those kinds of nuclear catastrophe isn't actually all that different to the environment that those creatures are adapted to. (That's the once-surprising part.)
Disagree? What adaptions do the plants and animals in those exclusion zones exhibit, and how is that analogous to what would be needed for the situation described in the article?