Evolution

[Abishalom]

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.

The limits on natural selection are variations within a species resulting in different kinds of that species. For instance, natural selection can yield different kinds of eagles, different kinds of finches, different kinds of fruit flies to better fit their environments. It just extracts the already existing genetic material to allow for adaptation resulting in variations of that species. It cannot cause algae to turn into a seed bearing plant, a fish to turn into an amphibian, or a dinosaur to change into a bird. The variation is limited to adapting and preserving a species (not turning it into infinite types). Every experiment documented has only been able to show that variations has its limits.

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.

Okay but you implying that variation is infinite is suggesting that an original species can alter its genetic code so severely that it changes EVERYTHING to the point where it is a whole new kind of species. Of course you claim this is the result of billions of years of adaptation, but there is no proof to back this claim.

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?

Well I agree that they divide into more single cell organisms (but that's it). So we seem to be on the same page here.

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

Well mutations are mainly harmful and the bad outweighs the good. So good luck trying to explain (with facts) how mutations allowed for a single cell organism to "evolve" into a 50 trillion cell organism in just 4.5 billion years.

You got that about half right.

How so?

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?

Well sometimes there is some ambiguity with the term species. But I was mainly trying to convey that there are no observed cases of one species "evolving" into an entirely different one (see my examples in the first paragraph of this post).

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.

No you do not realize that the variation offspring possess less genetic code than its progenitor. Through natural selection the variant offspring inherited the trait that best suited its environment leaving it with less genetic material than its parents.

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

I am only discussing the facts. As for straw man, there has been no such violation (but maybe you could look up the ad hominem wiki page).

---

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.

I am not going to back and forth with you guys. Obviously you're convinced (in your own mind) that the diversity we see is a result of chance mutations on a single celled organism over billions of year. All this while ignoring the mathematical improbability that a single celled organism could even "evolve" into a 50 trillion celled organism (humans) through random mutations despite the alleged 4.5 billion years they claim all this took place.

---

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.

Actually mutations are anything but rare. They happen all the time while any living thing is well... living. It is just an aspect of life. Your cells are being bombarded by any amount of things all the time and during any replication errors are made. Granted beneficial mutations may be rare but when they do happen and the genes are passed on, this is exactly how a species evolves.

We are mainly concerned with inherited mutations(ones passed to offspring through the genome of parents) since those are the only ones pertinent to evolution. Let's see...take the total mutations passed on to offspring and divide by the total genome (you'll get a very small number).