Evolution

[Abishalom]

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).....

What you are saying here has no relevance to what I am talking about. Yes there can be 'massive variation". But the limits I am speaking about are the boundaries on the possible variation which limit variation within a species. Let's not veer off course...

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.

Right lungfish turned into amphibians...even though there living today (I'm sure their offspring consists of...well lungfish).

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?

I may be no taxonomy expert...but you just tried to sell the idea that lungfish turned into the almost 6,000 species of amphibians we have today (even though lungfish are still alive and producing...lungfish).

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?

Well for starters there is no evidence to support the presuppositions of evolution.

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.

But NS is the mechanism by which variation occurs, so you are mistaken. Apparently you're not aware that variation can only occur in the offspring. To have offspring the parents must...well reproduce. Thus whether there be mutation or not, natural selection must act to preserve available traits in the offspring. If they have no offspring there can be no variation. Did your parents ever talk to you about the birds and the bees?

---

You have an inability to grasp the context. Firstly that wiki page is speaking specifically about SNPs that are defined as having an occurrence of at least 1% in the entire human population. That is a high frequency SNP and they are useful for medical research and yes, SNPS do not keep changing but that is not saying no new SNPs occur. You are either incredibly stupid to think so or you are outright lying like your apologetic guru. If you were not so fucking brain dead you could go on to learn that an SNP is nothing more than a single nucleotide polymorphism which is usually cytosine replacing thymine (about a frequency of 67%). Many SNPs have no effect on cell function (these are the ones you and other creotards are ignoring), but scientists believe others could predispose people to disease or influence their response to certain drugs (these are the ones your tunnel vision is allowing you to see).

Neutral in that it does not affect the function. But what if those neutral mutations receive a mutations? (hint they will become harmful).

Go back and read my post I said SNP's are concerned with diseases (which clearly do not explain how one species could "evolve" into another) and that they do not change OFTEN which I clearly highlighted in my post. Let's not be "willfully obtuse" as our friend Rhythm likes to put it.

BTW Wiki said nothing about 1% of the human population being affected by SNP (edit). If you read my quote 99% of the human DNA remains unchanged throughout generations. If you read wiki you will learn that most of the SNP's are located in the noncoding regions (where 97+% of the function is unknown). From this we can deduct that 1% of the human DNA gets SNP's BUT this 1% is mainly in the noncoding region and concerned with disease (as I've already clearly mentioned). It does not explain how 1 species can "evolve" into another. Oh and those SNP's are only useful to medicine because they do not change OFTEN (which you are confusing into meaning "always" But "often" does not imply exclusivity). I never implied that SNP never change...you made that assumption (well you know what they say about that).