"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."

There is a limit to microevolution. Do horses have more genetic information than a fox? Yes. Were did that new genetic information come from?
Microevolution does not introduce new information,
in fact, it is generaly a loss of information.
Why can't you see that?

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

You: "If it is beneficial to survival, yes."

Are humans still evolving today? If we are, why?
Evolving is not "benficial to survival" now.
I'm not the fastest, strongest, smartest, but
I don't need to evolve to survive.

Me: "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?"

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

Perhaps not commonly? How about never. Have amino
acids ever been found to make themselfs outside of
the labrotory? Give me just one example.

KC2GWX 73's

• 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