quote:The earth is at just the right tilt to that we don't burn or freeze to death.
I'm afraid that if you want to use that argument successfully, you're going to have to understand it. Axial tilt determines the extremity of the seasons, not the average surface temperature.
And incidentally, we feel comfortable in our current conditions because we evolved to them.
quote:We just happened to evolve the correct life processes
What makes these life processes correct? Because we have them? In that case, your reasoning is circular. There are thousands of other reaction cycles and potential metabolisms we could have used. Essentially as many are there are organic reactions.
quote:The planets just happen to orbit the sun without running into each other.
Simply for the sake of argument, if there had been other planets that were ejected or collided, the debris would most likely have reaggregated by now into new planets and asteroids, until the remaining planets were all in nearly circular orbits. But if our solar system were made perfectly, the planets would probably be in perfectly circular orbits and we wouldn't have those nasty collisions with the thousands of rather unfortunate asteroids that cross our orbit and occasionally destroy more of God's creations. Seems like a rather sadistic twist to our solar system doesn't it?
quote:Everything in life depends on a pattern of something creating something else.
And the variations of that pattern are evolution.
quote:Your mom and dad didn't evolve into you, they "created" you through a complex system of reproduction.
Mom and Dad are individuals. Populations evolve, individuals do not.
quote:Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life?
quote:Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
Can you demonstrate that time had a beginning?
quote:Your theories are quite weak.
Most theories are to the people that have a poor understanding of them.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-16-2002]
quote:I notice alot of your "finished products" require large amounts of time. Its hard to see that any large amount of time will build you the starting materials for DNA which in an of itself have an intricate design that chance or time could not reproduce.
You're overlooking the fact that the structure and the functions of DNA are defined by the laws of chemistry. What you call "intricate design" is actually the "natural" way in which DNA would assemble as defined by those natural laws. That's why we can propagate DNA in the laboratory.
Incidentally, the "starting materials" for DNA are ribose sugars, which only consist of a few atoms each. Why would these not assemble spontaneously?
quote:There are proteins that require the presence of other proteins to determine its own function.
When a new protein evolves, there will usually be other proteins already there.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-16-2002]
quote:I see alot of your answers are in the forms of questions which is an easy way out of explaining your point of view.
I have to ask you questions because many of the things you claim make absolutely no sense, but might be a misinterpretation of a legitimate piece of evidence. If I sift through your responses I might be able to correct you. However, since you have refused to reply to our questions and commentary, I suppose you just aren't serious about this debate.
quote:Although light and darkcolored moths did vary in expected ways in some regions of England, elsewhere they didn't.
Yes, "elsewhere" where the treetrunks were unstained, black moths would not predominate over peppered moths.
quote:Further, textbook photographs showing moths resting on tree trunks in the day, where birds supposedly ate them, run afoul of the fact that the moths are active at night and don't normally rest on tree trunks.
But whenever the moths did happen to rest on tree trunks, the selection pressure was there. But I'm curious. If you have done the research to make this point, where *do* the moths normally rest, and how are you confident that pollution had nothing to with the color change? Or did the color just change, for no reason?
quote:--Just a quick note, sounds like something an Intelligent designer would give to his creation, ability to replicate and build veriety, If you turned this moth into a fly or a grasshopper, that would be interesting, Creation has no conflict with this accept that some claim that this is 'E'volution in action.
TC, I feel like you're opening a door here that maybe you shouldn't. If a Creator gave His Creation the ability to build variety, such that the Creation would be able to better survive, then what we have is theistic evolution. I feel like you have inadvertantly justified evolution through theology and I'm intrigued by it. If a Creator gives moths some ability to change over short timescales, what will happen over longer timescales? If at some point they would suddenly turn back to the original form when conditions did not warrant it, this would make the original adaptation moot and therefore it would be a pointless addition to an organism's design. Logically they would be required to maintain the change until it was no longer in their favor to hold it (moths turning back to their peppered form). What happens when future adaptations become dependant upon extant adaptations? You have a compounding progression of changes in a population that continuously builds variety, and sometimes even complexity, and you end up with an ecology that has extraordinary redundancy and versatility in coping with whatever calamities might befall it -- something I would think God would probably be pleased with. If a population of moths had to turn into something that was not an insect in order to survive over millions of years, do you not feel that God would allow them to? Even through "natural" mechanisms, which might have been a part of His plan?
[QUOTE][b]Ok, Ok, Stop Right there.... Have you seen a protein evolve? I seriously doubt it[/QUOTE]
See the thread on nylon-metabolising bacteria, in which a new type of protein (specifically, an enzyme) evolved under laboratory conditions, as a result of chance mutation.
Of course, bacteria are known for this sort of thing. An entirely new serotype of Vibrio cholerae appeared in Madras, India in 1992 and rapidly spread across southeast Asia, where it is now endemic and is replacing the O1 strain. This is Serogroup O139, so different from the O1 strains that immunity to the latter does not confer immunity to the former. This means that O139 has a different antigen or set of antigens on its cell wall. An antigen, by the way, is a protein which the human immune system targets. And if you wanted more examples I could delve into emerging diseases, antibiotic resistance, and why we need new flu shots each years, but I won't waste my time.
Nobody has seen a protein evolve because it's really really difficult to get the tip of a scanning-tunneling microscope inside a living cell and examine the entire proteome without killing it. But the effects are there.
Your claim that evolution is not a science because it uses so many inferences that were not seen is absurd because, quite frequently in US courtrooms, people are sent to be executed because the prepoderance of evidence indicates that they are guilty. This is forensic science. Why then, are you not calling that a religion?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-20-2002]