Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Yes, from one generation to the next-functionally speaking (it would be possible to see some absolutely massive variation from one generation to the next but we wouldn't expect this creature to survive it very well, and if it didn't it wouldn't show up in the evolutionary record we call "genetics"). Why you think this argues for your conclusion rather than the conclusion of science with regards to "infinite variation" is beyond me. I think this has been explained to you more than once. I suspect that you're being willfully obtuse here. Why do you think that algae turned into a seed bearing plant btw? Who told you this? You're missing a vast amount of time (and variation) in between these two things. Seed bearing plants come after plants themselves in the evolutionary order of things. The plants you see today haven't always been here. They range from 1,200 to just 10 million years old (flowering plants and grasses being some of the newest, and woody plants being older than seed bearing plants, for example).....

Fish to amphibians? So I'm guessing that shit like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

just doesn't happen, right? Pro-tip, some fish are amphibious. They don't have to "turn into" anything.

You keep repeating this "turn into" garbage. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and taxonomy. Let's use you as an example, you haven't "turned into" anything. You are still a bony fish, you are a great many other things as well, but you haven't "stopped being" what your ancestors were. You have simply added more characteristics. This is one of those examples of "infinite variation". Amazing to consider, isn't it, that something like a fish and something like yourself share a common ancestor. It would seem that those "limits" you described aren't very limiting at all, hmn?

If you're going to keep appealing to evidence and experiment I don't see why you have a problem with E by NS. I think your beef lies elsewhere. Were you going to give me an answer to the question I posed to you or will this be a one-way exchange of information?

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.

That's apologetic trash amigo, you've been misled. Novel genetic material crops up all the time. You keep arguing about NS but you don't seem to understand that NS is not the mechanism by which variation occurs. I (and others) have already explained this to you. Again I suspect that you are being willfully obtuse.

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).

An ad hom would be attacking the arguer and not the argument. If I were to call you a moron, for example. It's been explained to you exactly how your arguments are straw men. And yet you repeat them, that's called "ad naus". Again, I suspect that you are being willfully obtuse (see, that's an ad hom, funny thing about ad homs though, just because they're ad homs doesn't mean that they aren't true)

Class dismissed?