In order to avoid extinction, humans will delay action and lie really big lies and maybe even pray to the gods but many will never admit a problem exists at all - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - we're monkeys after all!
Do 'species' respond on an individual basis or as a whole? Do they sit down collectively and decide, "Hey! I think we will just mutate."
"Nah! I think we ought to evolve."
"Hey! I gotta great idea. Why don't we all move to a Walmart sign! That will protect our species. See that is 'A'. 'A" is a great answer."
"Nah! The people there dress funny. It could preserve our species, but at what cost? My kids would be scared to death. It is like Halloween every day. My kids would be driven to mate with a dragon beetle or something else, maybe even a goat. That doesn't say much for preserving our species."
"I tell you what. Let us just do 'D'. After all, the earth's temperature has only gone up 0.02 degree C in my lifetime. Do you really think it is reasonable to mutate, or evolve, or move due to that?!"
"Yah, you are right. It is kind of stupid to worry about it. Where did you get that idea from anyway?"
"This fellow named Dork came by and screamed that his species is becoming extinct. I don't want that happening to us!"
"I dunno."
"Well, his brother Climate Realist confirmed it."
Can you really see some such species really thinking about what they are going to do to preserve their species? I will say, though, that it would make for good conversation around some university, especially under the influence of pot.
A. Moving is not an option for most species.
B. It's probably too late for that.
D. Acclimation implies reversible change, It might by a little time, but not enough.
C. Yeah, but that is kind of a trivial answer and the way it is written makes it sound a lot like (B). Species that survive or evolve typically already have characteristics (preadaptations) - often not essential for survival under existing conditions - that allow them to survive when environmental conditions change or when the move into new environments.
For example, lungfish had lungs that could fill with air and pelvic bones that allowed them to lift their bodies and move around - both of which were a big advantage when moving from living under water to land.
Great theory, if in fact the "species" contributed to climate change in any meaningful way. We didn't even get a summer here in the Pacific Northwest, I haven't been able to raise tomatoes outside the greenhouse for the past 4 years... what's up with THAT warming? The fact is after reviewing numerous scientific sources, specifically Malkoviches earth orbit studies and Tschumi and Stauffer Vostok Ice Core studies, Earth naturally experiences substantial climate change on 100,000 year intervals and right now we are on a climate upswing...meaning in general: Warming. To solidify that fact we are just getting over an ice age (we were taught that in grade school, remember?) Sooo, "Global Warming" is real, but not for the reasons the leftist eco-freak libtards proclaim. Our science community has in fact arrived at a rational figure for mans contribution to greenhouse gasses, and it is a whopping 3%. Reduce current fossil fuel usage one of those percentage points and half the populations of the 3rd World will starve. Beware the term "denier", it is a flaunt in the face of rational scientific fact.
E all of the above because those are all right for the most part. Humans are the exception.
Did your teacher say its OK to cheat by asking strangers on the internet to do your homework?
In order to avoid extinction, species may respond to climate change in which of the following ways?
Check all that apply:
A. Moving to a new location
B. Undergoing new genetic mutations
C. Evolving in response to the new conditions
D. Acclimating to the new conditions
