The Origin of Novelty

There was a report today about how bed bugs have developed immunity to insectacides.Bed bugs 'dodge insecticides' with molecular tricks - BBC NewsThe radio report spoke of mutations causing the immunities and suggested that they had been isolated.Anyone able to track down and understand the original research?ABE Just a moment...Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You could always try clicking on the link in the fifth sentence of the BBC article. The abstract you found (available in full here) is earlier research by same team, but no harm done, as it also looks interesting. Here's the 2013 paper.At a brief glance, processes include mutations on both coding and regulatory genes, plus my current favourite, increased protein expression due to selection on variable copy numbers of genes. That's how they harden their cuticles against our onslaughts. The kind of old tricks that rapidly reproducing organisms that exist in great numbers get up to. We do them all as well, but in relative slow motion.There's certainly "novelty", by any non-creationist definitions.EvCs own bug man Blue Jay might be able to help you, and, looking at the affiliations, might well know one or more of the authors. He might even be one of them!

Indeed!! Everything appears to be 'completely beyond you'. Are you seriously telling us that you don't know that fossils can and are dated by the geological layers that they are interspaced in (layers that can be dated by several methods)?When scientists line up a row of skulls for you to look at they are NOT placed in a random order, but in order of 'geological age'.It should be obvious to you that example after example shows gradual progression from 'what was' to 'what is now'. To throw this out first you would have to 'somehow' break the dating of these specimens. Do you deny geological dating techniques, along with mutation and NS and god knows what else to maintain your a priori belief system?Regarding the fossil record - are you aware of how fossils form, their incredible rarity due to special conditions needed, and the fact that the vast majority of Earths total fossils are still undiscovered - locked in kilometres of sedimentary rock sequences?To expect a 'good fossil record for all lines' is frankly a childish stance. Take the giraffe - creationists love to bring that one up - specifically mentioning that there are no precursors - showing 'growing' necks in the fossil record. Well - what environment does the giraffe (and presumably its predecessors) live in? - Africa savannah grassland. How likely is it that such animals get to fossilise? Have you ever seen films of the Serengeti for example? Food is at a premium, animals even slightly unaware of their environment are quickly taken by numerous predators. Sick, old or infirm animals are ruthlessly culled and eaten. The small remains are cleaned by vultures and other scavengers. Very very few of these animals are left at all to be fossilised.Then on top of that fossilisation itself needs very special conditions. Surely you didn't think an animal lies down on the ground, dies and turns to a fossil did you? Very unique physical and geochemical conditions are needed for this to happen. So the miniscule (for that read virtually none) grassland individuals that do die, then need an incredibly rare fossilising environment, and then finally if that did manage to happen, we humans need to have discovered that fossil which could be buried in kilometres of rock sediments.That we have the fossils we do have is frankly amazing - and only possible because of the zillions of critters that the long history of evolution on earth has afforded us.Before you start criticising a subject of which you patently have only a child's knowledge you may find it pays you dividends to read some basic literature or enrol on a basic science course - it's very clear so far that you have done neither, preferring instead to take your learning off creationist websites. Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

I actually do know those people: characters, all of them.But, unfortunately, I wasn't involved in that research, and don't know anything about it, except that they were doing it.Sorry.

Do you think that it's a decent example of a known mutation leading to a new feature?

Well I certainly am not claiming I have been into every rock to look for fossils, for that I would have to be superman. All I'm saying is that no transitional fossil has been found. If it sounded like I was making greater claims, I obviously am not (cos I'm not Superman) Which of those skulls are dated? Did they use argon-argon dating? Potassium-Argon? Uranium-lead dating? Or are you using the circular reasoning of assuming the dates from the feature changes Oh really? I could arrange any group of vehicles into an order of engine capacity. Or an order of number of wheels. Or an order of fuel tank capacity. Any varied feature you choose. Once ordered, this does not prove the order of their manufacture.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, Rhodesia man, 300,000 — 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern Look it up yourself. You wouldn't believe anything I would post about it anyway.

More specifically the skull has the prominent eyebrow ridges of an ape, the prominent cheekbones of the ape, and the upper arm to thighbone ratio is standard for an ape. Her brain size is a normal ape size. The only claim to being "human" is the very qualities already found in a gibbon, the upright pelvis, but her shoulder bones indicate she climbed trees (like an ape). So we have a 100% ape with a gibbons "upright" pelvis. Sure she stood up straight, so do gibbons.Missing link ....... new species of extinct ape......... or simply an extinct large gibbon? Unfortunately there are not enough human qualities to make big evolutionary claims. I can't find any real backing for my claim that Lucy's bones were spread out, except some creationist quotes. So you are right, I should have researched this more. (ps I AM interested in the truth. To make big claims that I am not, is a little over-dramatic. I got info from an unreliable site - so what, just point it out) Ooooooh Nasty! Sometimes its those that feel powerless and inadequate resort to nastiness, Mr Adequate. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

i do want to discuss mutation, have specifically requested a few times in this thread that we do discuss mutation. It evolutionists fixation with mutations that seems to blind you to other possiblities when you see two populations that vary. Its obvious that through sexual reproduction new allele frequencies can become common. To assume a positive mutation rather than a rare allelle becoming common is to take the LESS likely conclusion. Allele frequencies change even seasonally with flies, and so why assume a mutation when we have a common mechanism that would show the same results.

Well I posted a very recent study of bed bug insecticide resistance which, according to the biologists who worked on it, has been caused by mutations. But so far you haven't discussed it.This is all well above my pay grade, but this extract seems clear to me. Bed bugs evolved unique adaptive strategy to resist pyrethroid insecticides | Scientific Reports

I am fully aware that dating methods are sometimes used to date SOME fossils. I am also fully aware that they don't always find fossils in the correct rocks to be able to give dates for those fossils. The fact that some of these fossils are found ON THE SURFACE, and not in any rocks (ie Lucy) means we cannot be sure of the dates. Lucy was dated according to ash 1M BELOW her remains, how meaningless is that?So dating methods exist, these fossils exist, but how many of those fossils in Taq's list have been properly dated? Not Lucy, maybe one or two others? The list remains meaningless without the list of dates derived scientifically.(not that I accept radiometric dating, but I believe its a loose reflection of relative dates) I do understand that's what you think was done, and I agree that is what should have been done. Unfortunately scientific method is not as strong in evolutionary science as the method of evolutionary assumption. In evolutionary science, to date a fossil according to the ash lying a metre below is good enough if it fits pre-assumed timescales. Regarding the fossil record - are you aware of how fossils form, their incredible rarity due to special conditions needed, and the fact that the vast majority of Earths total fossils are still undiscovered - locked in kilometres of sedimentary rock sequences? Aaaaaah I was hoping someone would say this. Creation is often criticized for having no mammals in the carboniferous, but amphibians dominated then, in vast swamps which easily fossilize. Why would evolutionists expect creationists to show rare mammal fossils in the carboniferous when grasslands were rare and fossilization therein rare, and yet evolutionists do not have to reveal their own rare fossils? Surely that is hypocritical?I do understand your point, and agree that the lack of transitional fossils across most species and between the major groupings of biological life is not absolute proof against evolution.Both theories lack fossils, creation lacks mammal (and some plant) fossils in the carboniferous, and evolution lacks transitionary fossils.

Which is why scientists use multi-buttressing dating techniques. I presume you do realise that professional palaeontologists know when and how to apply the various dating techniques, how they understand control variables, and when a technique can or cannot be applied, and the margin of error implicit in the procedure? - In other words they know how to apply their 'profession'? The science of geochemistry is very detailed and the practitioners are very experienced in matching fossils to overlaying sediment/rock chemistry. Can I check what qualifications you have to dismiss their work out of hand on this site? Are you a qualified palaeontologist? A geochemist? A radio-dating expert? If you are none of these why should anyone listen to your dismissals? More whining of a layperson! Have you formally criticised these findings, written papers or conclusions by those that publish in the field — i.e. written articles to professional publications? If not, why not? (If your answer is "I don't have the depth of knowledge to critique" then you have your answer). Why do none (and I mean none) of your creationist ilk similarly criticise in the peer-review system (preferring instead to reserve their scorn for their own self-policed creationist websites). Are you not just a little suspicious here? Unwarranted assumption that shows your ignorance I’m afraid. Please provide evidence that the scientific method is not rigorously followed. Are you aware that the Theory of Evolution has such overwhelming multi-disciplined evidence for it, that it is one of the very strongest scientific theories we have. Eh??? It was ME that asked you the above question - remember? For it is clear to me you have little idea of the process of fossilisation and rarity of event. Mammals evolved from therapsids which were 'mouse-like' such as the Megazostrodon. They were hardly 'savannah type herbivores. It is highly likely that due to their small size and vulnerability that they hid in burrows or underground habitats. Fossilisation of animals like this should be more likely than a large savannah herbivore. Furthermore, small rodent- type reptile-mammals living underground are more likely to have their remains go un-scavenged and are more liable to flooding by local floods in a process more conducive to eventual fossilisation than a large savannah herbivore - you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You can't just say 'mammal' and expect a giraffe in its habitat to face the same fossilisation chances as a small mouse living underground for much of its time. Please describe your criteria for a 'transitional fossil'

It's not a choice between the two. Both occur, but only mutation introduces new variation. Variations don't pop up as needed, and don't propagate instantaneously. But even a rare mutation that does provide an advantage to individuals in propagating will be selected for. And after all no one claims that evolution is a rapid process.I hope you don't mind my bowing out of this discussion. It initially appeared that you had a new take on reasons for not accepting evolution. But you're just dusting off the same old PRATTS. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your statement is completely untrue. There are multiple trillions of possible new allele combinations , never seen on this planet before. For you to deny that a fresh combination can result in a fresh feature (dark fur in mice) is to deny statistical probability.New allele combinations can become fixed in a population merely due to variation through sexual reproduction, no new mutations are necessary. You evolutionists have FAILED to show indisputable proof of favorable mutations causing NOVEL features in this thread, due to not accepting logical alternative explanations. The stubborn retaining of the your views on each study despite logical alternatives being presented is scientific failure of a lack of commitment to TRUTH. Fine by me. I have enough evolutionists sticking stubbornly to their views despite the presentation of viable alternative explanations for each "proof" of novelty through so-called mutations. IF I could have ONE evolutionist that would say to me occasionally: "you make a logical point, I will drop that line of reasoning, let's move on to a new topic", then I would have hope in a rare evolutionist commitment to truth. I KNOW some of my arguments are logical, without you guys admitting to it, you seem stubborn and unscientific.(my rant is against all you guys, not you specifically NoNukes)

Like Lucy? hahahahahahaha Let's date my grandma's bones by the rocks found 1M below her grave. (there are rocks in that graveyard, rocks take long ages to form.) I can therefore categorically scientifically state that my grandma is thousands of years old. As I am about 50 years younger than my grandma, this makes me scientifically thousands of years old too. Don't worry I won't question science, but I suggest you listen to your elders because I'm thousands of years older than you (proven by dating the rocks below my grandma's grave) All hail science! Aah I must shut up because I do not have a qualification. Why don't you shut down this site and open a new one for experts only? Until this site is shut down, I will question the establishment, and expect an intelligent, scientifically backed answer. Not this weak lazy argument of "scientist's say". Oh really? That's what you guys say, until threads like these expose your lack thereof. Oh really? The megazostrodon has ears more resembling a mole than a mouse. It has NO OTHER reptile features, other than "ground hearing". The THEORY of evolution says we come from this mole-like creature , there is no evidence to back it up, except the assumption of evolution. Its breeding, its tooth structure , everything is mammal like. It's a poor reflection of what you would expect from a transitionary fossil between reptiles and mammals. I think scientists forgot about mole hearing when they classified this as "mouse-like" rather than "mole'like". All this justification for lack of fossils, and yet evolutionists use this "lack of fossils" argument against creationists???? Smacks of hypocrisy to me.And your argument that the megazostrodon was the first mammal, seems to contradict your subsequent argument that it was the first to fossilize and therefore not necessarily the first mammal. Unlike your unjustified assumption that I know nothing about fossils, the very arguments that you are presenting now have been core to my view for a long time now. Where there have been major phenotype changes claimed by evolutionists, there should be a range of fossils showing this gradual change. The fact that we can find thousands of the one type (reptiles) and thousands of the very mole-like megazostrodon fossils and nothing that shows a half reptile, half mole definitely weakens the theory of evolution. The same applies to the other claimed transitions of evolutionary theory, including giraffes as you point out. The platypus, the mole, each species requires a transition, and the very lack thereof among thousands of species is quite damning to evolution.