Evolution

[Abishalom]

You cannot be serious.

Here's a few articles to digest. You can see for yourself if variation is infinite.
http://www.ugr.es/~jmgreyes/gene%20flow%...ection.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23...6053352483
http://www.genetics.org/content/140/2/821.full.pdf

Read them before you post, moron. All of them talk about limits on natural selection not variation.

Guy you're delusional. They readily admit that their field does not prove evolution (common descent, infinite variation). It's well documented that there are limits to variation through natural selection (even in mutations). You seem to be uninformed.

Read again. The limitations are on natural selection NOT variation.

Are you aware how variation occurs? You should really think before you post. Obviously you did not even read any of the articles.

[Paul the Human]

Variation is due to mutation. Natural selection determines which mutations are most beneficial in the current setting.

[genkaus]

Are you aware how variation occurs? You should really think before you post. Obviously you did not even read any of the articles.

Genetic variation occurs by mutation. That is the type of variation we're talking about here.

[Abishalom]

Variation is due to mutation. Natural selection determines which mutations are most beneficial in the current setting.

Variation can be caused by mutations (which are rare). But as you've mentioned natural selection filters what mutations are passed down. Nevertheless there are limitations on the amount of variation (this is well documented). See my previous post for links.

Are you aware how variation occurs? You should really think before you post. Obviously you did not even read any of the articles.

Genetic variation occurs by mutation. That is the type of variation we're talking about here.

I am aware the mutations cause variation. But even those can only be passed down through natural selection, and as I've documented there are limitations on natural selection. Also, mutations can only cause so much variation as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, limitations from one generation to it's successor, and then the goalposts move for the next generation, ergo..limitless variation.

This is the old macro/micro chestnut, often trotted out by apologists who don't realize that they are one and the same (and just as often by those that do, who realize that you don't- you know, con artists....). You wont be able to present anything critical of EbNS that isn't outright bullshit or laughably ignorant. It's a dead horse. Save face.

[Cyberman]

Did someone leave the porch light on again?

[genkaus]

I am aware the mutations cause variation. But even those can only be passed down through natural selection, and as I've documented there are limitations on natural selection.

And none of those limitations prevent macro-evolution.

Also, mutations can only cause so much variation as well.

Evidence of this limitation?

[Abishalom]

Yes, limitations from one generation to it's successor, and then the goalposts move for the next generation, ergo..limitless variation.

This is the old macro/micro chestnut, often trotted out by apologists who don't realize that they are one and the same (and just as often by those that do, who realize that you don't- you know, con artists....). You wont be able to present anything critical of EbNS that isn't outright bullshit or laughably ignorant. It's a dead horse. Save face.

There are no goalpost being moved in variation. The limit was set when the creatures were created. You do know that natural selection selects from the already existent gene pool, right? A single celled organism has the gene pool to become...well a single celled organism. Even mutations, which a very rare, have a limit to amount of variation it can impose. And most mutations are harmful or neutral (the neutral mutations eventually become harmful). There are absolutely no observed cases of them causing an entirely new family of organisms. There are no facts to back the claim that variation in limitless. The only con artist the man that tricked you into believing in an idea with absolutely no evidence to support it. All he did was take observed facts and expound on them with his imagination.

---

I am aware the mutations cause variation. But even those can only be passed down through natural selection, and as I've documented there are limitations on natural selection.

And none of those limitations prevent macro-evolution.

No all of the limitations prevent it.

Also, mutations can only cause so much variation as well.

Evidence of this limitation?

Where's the evidence of infinite variation? There are absolutely no facts to back this claim. There are plenty that back the limited variation due to natural selection. Natural selection simply acts as a preserver of the species. It allows them to adapt to said environment. But the variation is within the species. It can lead to new sub-species (i.e. variation of finch, variations mice, variations of fruit flies etc) but it cannot change the entire genus or family of the species. It preserves the genetic material that is already there.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are no goalpost being moved in variation. The limit was set when the creatures were created.

And precisely when did this "creation" occur? By what agent? What are these limits? The "goalposts" that I was referring to are those that arise from one creature being somewhat different from it's predecessor, and the next being somewhat different from it's predecessor, which was somewhat different from it's predecessor. Continue this for millions of years. Small individual changes may not seem like much if you line up any given organism with it's "father" or "son", but a different picture is likely to emerge over a long span of time. This is what we see in the fossil record. This is what we see in genetics. This is what we can observe in something as simple and near to us as our own parents and children. All clearly related, sometimes very closely related, but often vastly different. This is why the distinction between micro and macro evolution (insofar as creationists argue for it) is meaningless.

You do know that natural selection selects from the already existent gene pool, right?

What else would it "choose" from, something non-existent? That would be a hell of a feat, wouldn't it? NS is the winnower, not the causal agent. That is probably one of the many misconceptions you seem to have that would lead to this whole bit appearing to be very confusing/contradictory/improbable/impossible to you.

A single celled organism has the gene pool to become...well a single celled organism.

Indeed, unless it gets some choice mutation. But speaking specifically of single celled organisms, all that is required is division. One become two, two becomes four, so on and so forth. You wouldn't be suggesting that cells are incapable of division, or that division is some incredibly complicated or impossible procedure to accomplish, would you?

Even mutations, which a very rare, have a limit to amount of variation it can impose.

Insomuch as the mutation cannot be deleterious (and then only if the organism is to survive) yes.

And most mutations are harmful or neutral (the neutral mutations eventually become harmful).

You got that about half right.

There are absolutely no observed cases of them causing an entirely new family of organisms.

Family does not equal species, I see why you are so confused. "Speciation", say it with me. Kings Play Chess On Fine Grain Sand. So that's problem number two right there, isn't it?

There are no facts to back the claim that variation in limitless. The only con artist the man that tricked you into believing in an idea with absolutely no evidence to support it. All he did was take observed facts and expound on them with his imagination.

It's not so difficult to understand. Even very limited variations successively piled on over immense spans of time produces what we would call "limitless potential". Again you have a very basic misunderstanding about what is being explained here. There are plenty of limiting factors beyond variation (the environment that the organism exists in, the potential for it to simply become extinct, etc), but variation in and of itself, however well confined or miniscule in any specific case, is limitless in it's overall ability. Problem number three, what we have here is a trinity.

I hope that helps to clear up whatever garbage you've been fed, and were gullible enough to swallow, by whoever decided that it was okay to fuck with you. What you are arguing against isn't E by NS, it's some magical horseshit an apologist sold you as "the scientific explanation" so that he could argue against it, it's commonly referred to as a "Straw Man".


Here you go buddy, let wonder lead you to knowledge.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

This ones for your apologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[genkaus]

No all of the limitations prevent it.

No they don't. Since macro-evolution does happen.

Where's the evidence of infinite variation? There are absolutely no facts to back this claim. There are plenty that back the limited variation due to natural selection. Natural selection simply acts as a preserver of the species. It allows them to adapt to said environment. But the variation is within the species. It can lead to new sub-species (i.e. variation of finch, variations mice, variations of fruit flies etc) but it cannot change the entire genus or family of the species. It preserves the genetic material that is already there.

I think this is the first time natural selection has been cited as a preserver of species rather than the eliminator of species. Is that why 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct?

The infinite variety of gene codes you see around you is evidence that the same basic genes can vary infinitely. The absence of any limitation on the variation makes it possible that they all came from one source. The evidence form comparative anatomy takes it form probable to possible. The evidence from all the other fields confirms it.