The question is not whether you will understand us, but whether we
understand you well enough to effectively address your position. We ask you
to define your terms so that we understand exactly what your position is,
not because we are avoiding debate. Debate is only possible when both sides
know what is being discussed.
>Okay, I'll get you started. Do you consider a human to be more complex
>than an ameba? If so/not, why?
The correct spelling is "amoeba". The answers to your questions depend upon
what you mean by complexity. Biochemically the answer is no, because
amoebae have the same basic biochemistry as any human cell does.
Structurally the answer is yes, because an amoeba is a single cell, whereas
a human being is a metazoan organism. Evolutionarily the answer is no,
because the amoeba is just as highly evolved beyond the last ancestor it
shared with human beings as a human being is, in its own way.
Perhaps if you explain what you mean by complexity I can give you a specific
>Do you think there's something fundamentally different
>about the limits of change that allow a snowflake to form from water vs.
>allowing amebas to mutate into humans? If so/not, why?
This question does not even make sense. What do you mean by "the limits of
change" in this case and why do you believe it has any bearing on this
And man did not evolve from amoebae; they are the wrong kind of animal to
have been man's one-celled ancestor.
Kevin L. O'Brien