Comments Related To: Climate Change And The Mystery Of The Shrinking Sheep

Very interesting report

Climate change is causing so many different evolutionary and scientific changes in the world. I have read so many articles in the past about what climate change has altered, but I haven't been keeping a running list. I'm starting with this one.


A big problem with climate change altering our already limited set knowledge of evolutionary behavior such as that of the benefits of larger sheep in Hirta is that humans are changing the balance of the natural world. We won't be able to predict events that would likely occur in science anymore because, as this article points out, the evolutionary benefits of larger sheep is reversing now as seen with the proliferation of smaller offsprings.


Of course, when the article states that the decrease in average size of these sheep is an "ecological response to environmental changes", one could argue that over the past millions of years, the environment has been changing and creatures have been evolving and responding to such changes in the environment. My reply, however, would be that those have been natural, scientific changes that the earth and nature have created over time. We, however, are emitting chemicals unknown to mother nature and speeding up changes in the world. At least, that's what I believe upon hearing what little I have learned about global warming and such. If someone knows more about this topic, I'd be very excited and appreciative to hear what you have learned!


So, will the increase in the smaller sheep population along with the larger sheep population pose a problem? Of course, eventually the smaller sheep who will be more "fit" to survive as Darwinian theory suggests will thus overcome the existence of the larger sheep in Scotland, so in the long run, I guess any problem wrought by the competing sheep populations will be fixed.


I have a question, however. Why is the young mum effect taking place now? Why all of a sudden are ewes getting pregnant earlier than usual?

More mutton chops for your dinner table. 5/7/2009.

If evolution is true, then the sheep would still continue to become larger no matter what the environment was. The opposite of evolution is decomposition; the height of the sheep is decomposing instead of evolving into a larger height. That is why Darwin recanted every theory he created about evolution on his deathbed. If evolution was true, nobody would die and decompose, every person would evolve when disease and old age attempted to attack the body. For example, fossils of Neanderthals were found to be as large as twelve feet tall. However, there are no longer any people on this earth that are twelve feet tall. The human race is now smaller than those who were on the earth. That is the opposite of evolution. If evolution is true, then why does an apple rot after a person bites into it? The apple should be able to evolve to keep its flesh fresh. As I said before, that is why Darwin recanted everything about the theory of evolution on his deathbed. Also, if evolution was true, it should have been proven to be a law in science by now. It has been 200 years since his death. It is still a theory because there have not been any experiments from planned hypotheses that have proven that evolution is true. I saw the National Geographic piece on the missing link that was on a month ago. That is great; they found one. However, for evolution to be proven as true, then thousands of other links have to be found for every species in the animal kingdom now. Sorry to be long-winded. I quote Brady Quinn, "Now I'm done."

aho1888, You are correct and it is exactly the way things are. The truth
is Darwin was dead wrong or he would not have recanted his ideas. He also
wasn't very popular in the church because they denounced him as a heretic
teaching Satanism. 6/7/2009.