The Origin of Novelty

You do so well make my point for me.

Hi, Dash. But it's your common sense that you're using to render this judgment on the evidence. The evidence fits a pattern that would be expected from the mechanisms we propose for ToE, but you decide that it couldn't work, because the odds of it all working out that way seem unrealistic to you.Well, how do you know what probabilities are realistic and what probabilities are not? You let your incredulity decide that for you. You have no other reason to think evolution doesn't account for the diversity of life.----- I didn't say it was an example of life evolving to be more complex. In fact, let's not talk about "complexity" at all: it's a very poorly defined term. Your previous posts all talked about "novelty," and that's a little better defined, so let's talk about that instead.What I said was that we have examples of changes in gene sequence, and such changes in gene sequence are all that is needed to explain the diversity of life.I had a Great Debate with Faith a couple years ago, where she didn't accept that beneficial mutations could happen. My response to your point here will be quite parallel to my response to her:Novelty, benefit, handicap, fatality, etc.: these are all phenotypes. When a mutation happens, it does not first consider what its phenotypic effects will be, then decide not to happen if its phenotypic effects would be novelty, benefit or increasing complexity. There is no mechanistic distinction between a mutation that produces a novelty, and a mutation that does not produce a novelty: adenine-to-guanine is just adenine-to-guanine, regardless of whether it causes an eyespot to become concave, or causes mitochondrial myopathy in humans, or has no phenotypic consequences whatsoever.----- Well, I don't actually know that RM/NS can't account for everything. I don't think it can, but I know far too little about molecular biology to trust my own opinion as authoritative.But, let's assume you're right, and I do know this. If that's the case, you ask a very important question: why assume RM/NS can account for anything if I know it can't account for everything?The obvious answer is that I actually know that RM/NS can at least account for some things. Here is a link to a study by Hallett and Maxwell (1991) regarding demonstration of a beneficial mutation in E. coli, and here is my summary of the study's findings for Faith.So, I know that point mutations can result in changes to gene sequences, and that these changes in gene sequence can result in differential fitness. I also know that mutations are quite common (you probably have about 70* of them yourself). *The article I linked to says 60, but the actual research paper says 70.I don't know of any other mechanism that has been observed to produce natural variation in gene sequences, so, until I do, I will stick with the mechanism that I know can explain at least some of the data. But, I will be happy to add other mechanisms as soon as they are demonstrated (e.g., horizontal gene transfer is probably an important one, but I'm not up on the theory or evidence for that).Edited by Blue Jay, : "URL" tag mistakeEdited by Blue Jay, : Another "URL" tag mistake

Have you tried the cup experiments I suggested in Message 102? Curiously, nobody has argued that clavicles would develop into eyes. Nor is there any selective pressure to do so, when eyes already exist in animals with foreheads and clavicles.I wonder where you ever came up with this straw man? Or more to the point, why?Enjoy

And I think Bolder-dash is a participant in the discussion, not the subject of discussion. 'Nuf said?Bolder-dash, I see you too have replied to AZPaul3's message, so let me issue a caution. Obviously I am moderating this thread. Please let me handle moderator issues. If you choose to try to handle moderator issues yourself and it becomes an escalating ad hominem-fest then it is unlikely to end well suspension-wise.Please, no replies to this message.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

I have cited the evolution of the complex mammalian middle ear where jaw bones evolve new function.I have cited pocket mice where specific mutations gave rise to a novel fur color. Not only that, but DIFFERENT mutations gave rise to the same phenotype in separate populations of pocket mice demonstrating the random nature of mutations.I have also cited the DNA differences between humans and chimps.Perhaps you can explain why none of these are valid topics for this conversation?

Then demonstrate that mutations are not capable of producing the differences we see between species instead of just claiming they can't. We do observe random mutations coupled with natural selection. We do observe these mechanisms producing novel traits and a nested hierarchy.What you are asking for is the direct observation of millions of years worth of evolution in a single life time. Let's use an analogy . . .You invite me over to job site where they are building a complex 100 story office building. You claim that the humans we see moving about the iron framework of the building are all that is necessary to create that complex building. I argue that humans can't do it, that it is preposterous in the extreme. My proof? I sat there for 5 minutes and none of the complex features of the building appeared. The humans were only capable of microbuilding, not macrobuilding which is required for complex features. I further argue that if it can't happen in 5 minutes then it surely can't happen in 5 hours, or even 5 years. It is just preposterous.That is what you are arguing. You are arguing that the handful of years that humans have been observing species that we should see the same massive changes that occur over millions of years. Good. That is a great place for us to start.Now, show me a DNA sequence difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by random mutations and the mechanisms of evolution. Or, at least describe a methodology that I can use to determine which differences can be produced by random mutations and which can not. Show me the criteria you are using to determine that divergent features can not be due to random mutations filtered through selection. We can focus on a specific sequence if you like. I can see the differences just fine. All you need is some time and a knowledge of such tools as BLASTn:Nucleotide BLAST: Search nucleotide databases using a nucleotide query We do know what that pattern would be if evolution was the mechanism behind biodiversity, and that is exactly the pattern we observe. We observe a difference in divergence for exons and introns. We observe a difference in divergence for coding regions and pseudogenes. We observe a difference in divergence for synonymous and non-synonymous mutations. We observe a nested hierarchy. All of these are EXACTLY what we would expect to see if evolution is true. That is why evolution is so widely accepted by biologists, because it does such an exquisite job of explaning the data we do have.

You answered a question with reference to facts and evidence, whereas the proper way to answer a question is to post incomprehensible ravings about "fruit loops", which I understand to be a form of breakfast cereal. I'm not sure whether gibberish about Coco Pops would be equally acceptable, perhaps you could ask.

Did I do an experiment with a tube of paper to see if dimples on my body would focus light? Well, no actually I didn't you know why? Because conveniently I have dimples on my body already, and you know what's interesting? They don't do a damn thing to help you feel the light better.Here, you can try: Go lay out in the sun and feel where it is coming from. Next cover up your entire body with a wool cloth, 3 inches thick, made of lamas hair. Then make a small slit right in the middle, so that your belly button is the only thing exposed to the light. Now see if your belly button helps you focus on the light better than say your forehead.Repeat the same process using both clavicles. Notice the negative correlation between the depth of your clavicle, and its ability to focus the sunlight.Not a straw-man, but an obvious and funny way to show just how ridiculous your notion that a dimple will lead to an increase in sensitivity to light. And you don't even need a paper tube cut into quarters to prove it. Edited by Bolder-dash, : I was laughing too hard to type well

If it works, will you accept it as evidence?

A depressed pit is only half lit by light coming from the side compared to a non-depressed pit where all the photoreceptors are stimulated by a light source coming from the side. These are facts. A depressed pit does offer crude directionality.

Hi, Dash. I'm not sure I understand the direction that this discussion between you and RAZD has taken, but you seem to have lost sight of the topic at hand. Are you arguing that a concave surface on a photosensitive patch wouldn't improve vision?If so, I can tell you that you're wrong. Concave/parabolic light receptors don't "feel the light better" or "focus the light": they detect light coming from oblique angles; and they distinguish between light coming from the right, and light coming from the left. This is a well-documented phenomenon in physics, and was the basis of early inventions like the pinhole camera and the camera obscura. It's a principle that's also used extensively in life, not only in the pit eyes of some molluscs, but also in the heat-sensitive pit organs of several types of snake.Personally, I'm skeptical of this whole suite of experiments: I didn't think human skin was actually photosensitive in the sense that RAZD is espousing. But, I could be wrong, so maybe I'll go try it sometime and find out.But, on the subject of the evolution of eyes, we're not talking about a dimple evolving on a random patch of semi-photosensitive skin: we're talking about a concavity evolving on the surface of a fully-developed visual organ that already has multiple specialized tissue layers and even an optic nerve to allow central processing. In this case, the physics is clear, as Taq explained: a depressed pit allows crude directionality.But, the real question you've been asking is whether or not mutations could allow such a development in the eye. Taq and I have both provided argumentation about that upthread: do you have any response to those arguments?

No Blue Jay, the real question I am asking is not whether or not mutations could form an eye, the question is whether or not RANDOM mutations could form an eye-and I think the answer to that is almost certainly no.For one thing, we just don't see any evidence of such random mutations cropping up in species, random mutations for cornea on peoples elbows, and adjustable pupils in between your toes. This is what random means. It means purposeless, scatter-shot, it means accidental deformations.You and Taq and Razd talk about small refinements here, and slight adjustments there, as if randomness would really cause mutations of fine adjustment. You don't even have evidence for the appearance of the basic building blocks for an eye, before it has ever been put together, and now you want to say that a slight accidental deformation here, and a random jumbling of proteins there would cause a perfectly centered, perfectly circular, light adjusting aperture with rapid focusing and light detection to get better through copying errors.And the best defense you have of this outlandish scheme is-well, can you prove it couldn't happen?Well, how about the fact that most of these so called accidental refinements are not mutations to one gene, but instead involve a whole series of very complex and inter-related genes and proteins. Single point mutations could never do the things you are claiming. You can't to a single spot on the human genome and say, this is where a copying error would cause a pupil to form.Your sides attempt at calling it an argument of incredulity is incredulous. I say eyeballs were formed by raindrops which are sprinkled out of the nighttime sky like warm snowflakes. Can you prove it couldn't happen?

Hi, Dash. I have no objections to your terribly important amendment.Out of curiosity, do you espouse some form of non-random mutation as a mechanism for evolution?----- Well, I don't dispute your definition of "random." However, you seem to still be lacking an understanding of how mutations translate into phenotypes. It sounds like you think there is a one-to-one correlation between mutations and organs or organ components, like there is a "fingernail" gene and an "earlobe" gene, and a "hair" gene (baldness, in your view, is undoubtedly caused by a lack of the "hair" gene).Random mutations won't produce corneas or adjustable pupils. They might produce patches of skin that have some of the characteristics of a cornea, but they won't make a cornea outright. For example, a mutation might cause the skin to become more translucent. And, actually, people's skin can and does vary in translucence: it's just a matter of the amounts of pigment.----- And, you missed the whole point of my Message 122.I know that RM/NS does explain at least some of the variation in gene sequences among organisms.
I know of no other demonstrated mechanism that can explain any of the variation in gene sequences among organisms.
Therefore, as of right now, RM/NS is the only mechanism I can defensibly turn to for an explanation.If you can provide evidence that raindrops explain any of the variation in gene sequences among organisms, I will be happy to endorse your "nighttime raindrops" idea as a valid scientific hypothesis.Edited by Blue Jay, : Remove the testy bit

Do you think that could be due to the overwhelming signal you get from the rest of your light sensing equipment?Do you think that this invalidates the experiment designed to show you a small differential in sensing for an organism that has no other eyes?The point is to demonstrate that direction can be ascertained in this manner. Again the issue is not focus but direction.Seeing as the bellybutton only senses the sun when in direct alignment with the hole while the forehead is essentially omni-directional then yes I would expect to get better direction information from the hole\bellybutton. Again, the issue here is not focus but direction. Except that, amusingly, all you have demonstrated is a failure to do the experiment as suggested and a failure to understand the point of the experiment.Enjoy.

Please show your working. You pathetic idiot.