redblueamerica.com

To say that Darwin was disproven is overly spun. It's like saying Babe Ruth was a lousy baseball player because he made outs more than 60% of the time and sometimes struck out.

In fact there are some cases of evolution that can be attributed to gradualism -- changes in beaks of Darwin's finches that have been observed over the last 35 years and changes in the size and age of maturity in fish that are harvested are good examples. However, most of the fossil record better fits the puncutated equilibrium model and the general pace of evolutionary change is often faster than what Darwin had specualted about. That's a minor detail that has been refined a modern theory that still has natural selection and evolution by common descent as the most important aspects of the punctuated equilibrium model. The model differs from Darwin primarily by saying that most diectional selection occurs near the time of speciation. The meat of Darwin's theories about evolution have never been rejected scientifically, but have been refined over the last 150 years. That is to be expected because that is how science works.

14 grammatical, capitalization, and spelling errors in one short paragraph. You have no right to be calling anyone stupid.

I would have voted "yes" if you had yes, no, undecided.

But your obviously trying to reason that global warming is a man made problem by stating "environmental problems."

A better question would be, "at what point does scientific observation go out the window because you think the ends justifies the means in concluding global warming can only possibly be a manmade phenomena?"

Earth has endured quite a bit more extremes of weather than this. Next you'll try and tell me that cavemen caused the Ice Age. I mean obviously they did right? Just 55 million years ago Earth was a tropical jungle into northern Canada, then humans come along and suddenly a massive Ice Age occurs?

Hey ask that question instead. Were humans responsible for climate change resulting in the Ice Age?

Or better yet don't try to lure people into voting for a preconceived answer. They have to be ultra liberal or ultra conservative, there is no middle ground right?

As long as the Democrates continue to ignore the states of Michigan and Florida, I will be doing the same to the Democratic Party come election time.
Weather Clinton or Obama win the nomination I for one will not be voting for anyone in the Party as long as these two states are left out of the process for choosing a canditate. I will continue to ignore Democratic candidates if the states of Michigan and Florida are left out of the convention.

GOOD BYE DEMOCRATES!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't even have commonsense. Evolution was disproved as a theory back in the 1970's It's time for America to wake up.

mccain's the perfect candidate for those 26% who are either undecided or think it's not important for a president to be scientifically literate. i don't think the question is skewed, it merely asks if the president should be literate, not an expert... and at least as far as the economy is concerned, you couldn't ask for a more illiterate, ignorant, or apathetic candidate. HRM... let's STOP "WASTING" millions in teacher pay, construction, and environmental costs... on the other hand, CAN I PLEASE BORROW A FEW TRILLION... I'm trying to maintain an empire. get real...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Yes, the poll is skewed. The discerning reader would, I hope, draw the same conclusion you did about the ratio of positive to negative responses.

In fact, none of the polls on this site are scientific. No online poll is. The samples are self-selecting and, because we allow anonymous users to participate, they're demographically biased as well. The polls serve no greater purpose other than to "take the temperature" of RedBlueAmerica readers and to spark discussion.

Because scientists have a habit of challenging business on environmental issues, and can easily refute "creationist" theories.

I'm looking for the next leader to have common sense.