"There is a limit to microevolution. Do horses have more genetic information than a fox? Yes. Were did that new genetic information come from?"

Why don't you think that new genetic data can't be added? Mutations are more or less random: a different trait here, a new one here, one less there. If the mutation is beneficial, the creature lives, and passes his DNA on. And the mutation may have increased the amount of information. As Scott pointed out, the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics. As they get more and more immune to more and more things, their complexity must also neccesarily increase. Agreed?

"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."

That's not really an argument against evolution. Although it is true that the survival of the fittest rule does not apply to humans as much any more. That might be a negative thing in the long run, but the alternative is eugenics. I don't know what's worse.

"Perhaps not commonly? How about never. Have amino
acids ever been found to make themselfs outside of
the labrotory?"

If the conditions in the laboratory match those in the outside world, what is the difference? No, we haven't flown into a nebula to check.

• 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