Timid, I am really enjoying this thread also.

I guess we need to clear up a couple of words here, what exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution? To evolve means to adapt. Not all adaptations are for the better, the bad ones end...there are plenty of examples of species that have gone extinct.

In your example I would say that man got in the way of evolution in this case. If man would not have placed that factory there, destroying the "normal" state of that moth's habitat, I think the white one would have had an advantage. I don't think we can blame this one on adaption/evolution.

Regarding the dogs, yes they are still just dogs, but their characteristic have changed according to what their environment demands from them. Ie. Take my dog, she is a Doberman Pinscher...very smart and protective. A lot of people use Dobermans as guard dogs because of these traits. Try using a Dachshund dog (wiener dog ) in the same role, probably not the same effect...but they are both dogs. Wiener dogs were breed to be that size to fit into rabbit holes, there is no way a Doberman could do that, well maybe her snot . I am not sure that this is a great example because man again "pushed" these features with selective breeding. But, I think it is an okay example.

I agree that all people are just people, no matter what race, religion, etc. etc. Same thing for dogs. I don't think that evolution means that we have to change the species in one shot...it may take many, many years for that to happen. Quick example, all modern men (and women ) are of the species Homo Sapien Sapien, but there was also Neaderthal Man. Neaderthals were a different species to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and are now extinct...they had different charateristic and were not as well adapted as we were, we evoved differently. I hope my memory is correct, I am going back to my high school education on this one!

Let's go back to your moth example but this time let's set up an imaginary environment where the factory was never built. Let's assume that the white moth prospered and the black one survived...fast forward x number of years and we find that the black one lost it's wings because it discovered long ago that it could survive better on the ground where the dirt etc. gave it better camoflague. It no longer had need for the wings. It also discovered that there were other bugs also and that they were easy prey for it, so it now started to eat these bugs instead of leaves. We now have 2 completely different bugs that really came for the same "mother".

 

Let's go back to your moth example but this time let's set up an imaginary environment where the factory was never built. Let's assume that the white moth prospered and the black one survived...fast forward x number of years and we find that the black one lost it's wings because it discovered long ago that it could survive better on the ground where the dirt etc. gave it better camoflague. It no longer had need for the wings. It also discovered that there were other bugs also and that they were easy prey for it, so it now started to eat these bugs instead of leaves. We now have 2 completely different bugs that really came for the same "mother".

Now we do have a completely different species.


Now show me when that has happened?

 

Right here:

[QUOTE]Quick example, all modern men (and women

 

Something I don't see mentioned in this thread so far:

There is some published evidence that DNA contains encoding for MANY functional variants that are not active (say, gills for humans). In that view it is possible that evolution is mostly selective expression of what already exists.

You can't say you don't know about a lot of genetic variants that are not successful; Diabetes and similar genetic diseases represent mutations or could be called unsuccessful evolution.

I do not discount the existence of a creator. But I do trust the scientific method and I believe in evolution.

 

It seems to me that creationism and evolutionism are both seemingly at odds with the human concept of time. "Time" as we know it (and I don't think we really do) is a concept contrived by humans to provide references to points of change. There have been many scientific discoveries in recent years on macro and micro scales that indicate flaws in our understanding of "time," ie. how can our understanding of time be valid andcertain scientfic observations be explained only outside of conventional wisdom?

If time is never-beginning and never-ending then consider this; our lives are but an infinately small blip on an infinitely long "time" line. It is so small, an observer of the entire time line might think it is non-evolving, stagnant. Is our blip really of consequence to the entire time line or to the observer? How many other blips are there and are they of consequence?

Does our evolution or non-evolution matter to any creature at any time other than us?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gregstevens
[B]Take this as an example to make my case...take an ordinary wrist watch, take it apart piece by piece until it is broken down into its individual components.

 

This goes to my argument that extended time doesn't exist. All things at all times are in the here and now. Therefore, God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and end, and there is no such thing as evolution "as we know it".

I'll give you "time" to respond.

 

Time is not a constant...ie gravitity slows time down. There already have been tests using extremely sensitive clocks. Place one clock on the Earth and another one in an airplane at 50,001 ft...the clock on the airplane will move slower relative to the one on Earth because it is subject to less gravity. This also works for speed, place on clock on the Earth and another one in the Space Shuttle. The clock on the Space Shuttle will be slower than the clock on the Earth.

So if you want to live longer, stay in your S and keep it at redline!

So time is not here and now, it is relative the the person's environment. Using the space example again, as a person approaches a black hole, it's gravational pull will constantly accelerate that person (and subject him/her to increasing amount of gravitational force). As the speed increases, due to the increased gravitational pull, time slows down. Once that poor soul, arrives at the black hole's event horizon, time stands still and he/she is crushed to absolute nothingness due the gravitational pull of the black hole. This is were things start to get really wierd. Once you pass the event horizon, space and time are interchangeable. Picture this, on Earth, you can move in any of the 3 dimension, up, down, left, right, front and back, but you have no control over the 4th dimension - time, you are constantly getting older, you can't do anything about it. Inside the Black Hole you have freedom of time... but you lose control of direction because you are dragged kicking and screaming towards the singularity of the Black Hole. Now time travel and worm holes come into play...but that is another subject.

 

I'm agnostic so I really don't believe one way or the other. You'd have to show me facts before I'd believe any theory. (Even the ones I come up with.)

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by matrix
[B]Time is not a constant...ie gravitity slows time down.