"Once again, I don't disagree. But the changes
are not mutations, like you said before. "

ANY change, no matter how small, is a mutation of a different degree.

"My question was if they will evolve into a higher life form. Like an ape into a man."

If it is beneficial to survival, yes. Intelligence is a big factor in the development of apes, since they [we] are not exactly the physical king of beasts. It was either find an alternative to physical strength, or die out. Fortunately, they developed better brains.

You assume that there is something fundamental about life that makes it a 'higher life form.' This is not the case. We may be the most intelligent animal, but far from the quickest, the strongest, the most efficient, the least cancer-prone, etcetera. You're using purely human terms to classify animals that are, in their own right, just as complex as us. Just with different benefits.

Moreover, you can't have it both ways. It's either all evolution or none. Micro-evolution counts. Why can't you see that? It boggles my mind. If a species changes with time, no matter how small, eventually the changes will add up to where it can be considered a new species. Adaptation is short term change. Evolution is the long-term accumulation of that change. It's elementary.

"Ok, does life occur in the wild? If it is a common natural phenomena then do amino acids
commonly line up in the wild and create life?"

Perhaps not commonly. But the chemical reactions needed are far from impossible.

• It's elementary - kc2gwx - May 14, 2002 - 03:18 UTC
  • More stuph - stormcrow - May 14, 2002 - 04:04 UTC
    • It's so late...why am I still up? :) - kc2gwx - May 14, 2002 - 04:36 UTC
      • What do you mean? - stormcrow - May 14, 2002 - 16:24 UTC
        • Bear with me... - kc2gwx - May 14, 2002 - 18:43 UTC