Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

In order for a single celled organism to evolve into fish, amphibians, birds, mammals, and eventually, man over millions of years, new body parts have to emerge.Why haven't we seen a single instance where a new body part has been introduced? (not duplication of body parts)A Body Part is any part of an organism, such as liver, lungs, stomach, leg, finger, etc.A new body part is any body part that was introduced to an organism that was not there before, either in the organism itself or the entire population of that particular species.To my knowledge, I don't know of any instances where this has been observed, either directly or indirectly.Edited by Forever, : No reason given.Edited by Forever, : No reason given.

Welcome aboard Forever.In order to get threads started well and to keep then focussed we like to spend a bit of time making sure the OP (opening post) is clear.Since we also get a number of people who pretend to be asking questions but are not the least interested in learning anything we like to see someone put some effort in to demonstrate good faith.I think this will make a good topic of discussion so let's flesh it out a bit and get it going.You may edit the message one and then post a reply to this message to let an admin know you think it is ready for another look.To make the discussion get going smoothly I'd like you to explain why you think that there is not been an instance of a new body part.I'd also like you to define your terms. In other words, what would you count as a "new" "body part"?What do you mean by "seen"? This may sound silly but there are some very silly people here who think that only eye witness accounts mean anything. Of course, I'm sure you understand from the psychological work done how unreliable they such accounts are and are also aware that it is extremely common that we confidently make inferences by observing things without seeing them. It wouldn't hurt if you clarify all that though.Thanks.

I edited the OP.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If you ignore duplication, then you ignore one of the primary ways in which evolution works, duplication and exaptation.Exaptation - WikipediaWhy would you want us all to ignore something that we have ample evidence for as a mechanism of evolution?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The evo-devo answer would likely be that nature goes with what works, not intentionally, but not randomly either.They might be inclined to point out that animals, such as sharks, have few gradations which, in turn, shows that the current morphology of sharks, with all of it contrivances and adaptations, are well suited for its environment. Thus, there is nothing that would necessitate a change in allelic frequency.As for the creationist/ID'ist viewpoint, they might say that it just further supports that large mutational changes act adversely in the wild as aberrations that nature weeds out, rather than fixes in a population.I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.However, something that both evo's and non-evo's agree upon is a new body part wouldn't just sprout out of thin air. From the evolutionary perspective, any new morphological changes might first occur in homeobox mutations that started out innocuously and inconspicuously. Later on down the line, the organism learns to co-opt this abnormality in useful ways.But from the perspective of the design inference, we have to consider that in order for such an extravagance to develop, first there must have been some mutation which nature never intended. A proto-wing or a proto-fin, or what have you, would first have to have been so crude so as to actually impede and inhibit the organisms survival-- so much so that it would hardly make sense that it ever gets from point A to point B, let alone point A to point Z.And surely if such an evolution took place, as surely it would have to have happened for every single creature we see today at some point in pre-history, there should be transitional evidence of such gradations. So much so that laboratories, universities, and natural history museums would be littered with just such creatures in a timely, ordered sequence.The only other alternative is a "Hopeful Monster" theory, where one organism inexplicably births another so dissimilar as to give no evidence that one came from the other. But no pragmatic person would ever actually posit such a fantasy.Lastly, does the fact that no creature has ever been documented to evolve in the way you've described evidence that it is impossible? No. But at the same time, the mere fact that no examples exist, given the incomprehensibly voluminous number of organisms that have graced the earth lends far more credence that such things do not take place.Therefore, it seems far more reasonable that organisms stay within a niche because they were created in a specific way, rather than amoeba's being the progenitors of men.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

Welcome to EvC.Permanent modification of a body part counts. It is how many exciting developments in evolution happen.The evolving shape of the human jaw appears to be behind the observation that fewer and fewer individuals grow wisdom teeth.Modifications of existing parts lie behind the appearance of many 'new' features in the past, such as tetrapod feet, the mammalian inner ear, the feathered wing, and the whale flipper.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Since when is this an IDist (or creationist) postition?It seems to me that if there is a very powerful, intelligent designer then she/he/it could make the large changes that we can make in a human design. In fact, the idea of IC (irreducible complexity) is exactly this- that the designer can bring all the parts together at once and so make a large change.You are exactly 180 degrees from the actual case with the above. NJ, you have been here long enough by now to answer your "wonder" above. A modest understanding of evolutionary biology would stop anyone from making such a statment. Maybe it is a bit more than you can handle after all, eh?Since we do have a "littering" of examples the rest of your post is about as far off the mark as the quoted parts.

quote:

---

As for the creationist/ID'ist viewpoint, they might say that it just further supports that large mutational changes act adversely in the wild as aberrations that nature weeds out, rather than fixes in a population.

---

............ Always. Its an argument against the assertion of abundant beneficial mutations, which evolution needs in order to be a viable theory. I'm not understanding your objection, much less understand why think it is a departure from the ID paradigm. They have always asserted this. I certainly don't believe God micromanages every aspect of life, nor have I ever alluded to thinking anything along those lines. So I'm unclear on what you are actually objecting to.

quote:

---

I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.

---

Its really quite simple what I mean. If avian are the progeny of therapods, what actually caused the introduction of wings? And what would it look in humans, should it happen to us as well, being that we could all benefit from it in a positive way? It was just a real simple question that didn't warrant your holier-than-thou response. Lets set the record straight here Ned. Why are you so totally combative to everything I say? How much more non-aggressive could my post have been, that you think I deserve some kind of lecturing from you, of all people?!?!You have no actual refutation.... Just shy of, never. Yet you speak with such condescension as if you have any clout. When you respond next, I would like for you to present an intelligible treatise with some kind of actual refutation.We're here to debate and pass ideas from one another to gain insight. So lets do that in a courteous manner. The conversations will go a lot more smoothly.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

We have ample that things you think cannot occur do in fact occur. We have ample evidence that what you think logic excludes does in fact happen. This is because the world is not limited by your ignorance or (in)ability to make logical arguments.Thus when you argue that something cannot occur, chances are good that it did in fact occur. What do you mean by "large mutational changes" nem? The usual creationist hopeful monster falsehood? Another typical failure of logic and understanding. That any organism could "make use" of a feature is no cause for such development -- there is no directed purpose to evolution (as there would be for ID -- thus this is an indictment of ID rather than evolution).Furthermore there are flying quadra and bipedal animals, or does your universe of delusion exclude bats and birds (to say nothing of flying fish, snakes, frogs, etc)? The answer, of course, is that it is not critical that a developing feature have no detrimental aspect, but that it has a net beneficial aspect, so that overall it increases the survival\breeding rate of the individuals carrying or improving the feature.For instance there is a detrimental aspect to having extra skin between front and hind legs on a squirrel, it can catch on parts of the tree, it takes energy to make and maintain, and it increases places where disease and infection can occur. This is offset by the increased ability of the squirrel to jump\glide further than others, and thus increases ability to evade predators.The result in one case is flying squirrels (43 species), in another case the result is (marsupial) Sugar Gliders (1 species, 7 subspecies) and in another case the result is Bats ("about 1,100 species of bats worldwide")Why? Because you say so (see opening comments)? Or is this just another example of your ignorance (or denial) of the evidence that exists? Only if you hide in a box and restrict yourself to ignorance, denial and bad logic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It doesn't matter to the ID movement what your position is. Their position is precisely that God micromanages at the biochemical level (e.g., blood clotting and bacterial flagellae). The majority (if not all) IDists also believe that an omnipotent god is the micromanager so I would take it as obvious that not only minor changes are possible but also something like a fully formed pair of feathered wings in addition to the other limbs of a quadraped (e.g., Pegasus and angels). To suggest otherwise is to belie what the Discovery Institute appears to be trying to say (not that they are clear or consistent). Of course, evolutionary processes work precisely because they don't require abundant beneficial mutations. The process is a hugely wasteful one (half of all things you call human thrown away over and over again) and slowly conserves and accumulates whatever beneficial mutations do appear. They don't need to be "abundant" at all. (of course, who knows what you mean by abundant).Your question concerning Pegasus has been answered already. You should be embarrassed for not being able to answer it yourself. That is better reaction than getting all upset about being condescended to when you have had the time and considerable effort made by others to help you understand. At this point in time my inclination is to not invest time but rather pat you on the head and send you to the vocational training class.

Welcome to the fray, Forever. Let's start with the first "new" feature we know about: organelles.When life first developed it was a simple single cellular life, what we now call procaryotesProkaryote - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Prokaryotes (IPA: /prkæritiz/) (from Old Greek pro- before + karyon nut or kernel, referring to the cell nucleus, + suffix -otos, pl. -otes; also spelled "procaryotes") are organisms without a cell nucleus (= karyon), or any other membrane-bound organelles. Most are unicellular, but some prokaryotes are Multicellular organisms.

​

The prokaryotes are divided into two domains: the bacteria and the archaea. Archaea or Archaebacteria are a newly appointed kingdom of life. These organisms were originally thought to live only in inhospitable conditions such as temperature, pH-extremes, and radiation, but have since been found in all types of habitat.

​

A distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes (meaning true kernel, also spelled "eucaryotes") is that eukaryotes do have "true" nuclei containing their DNA, whereas the genetic material in prokaryotes is not membrane-bound. Eukaryotic organisms, such as humans, may be unicellular or multicellular. The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms.

---

Prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) have existed for at least 3.5 billion years.Eukaryote - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Animals, plants, fungi, and protists are eukaryotes (IPA: [jukæ’t]), organisms whose cells are organized into complex structures by internal membranes and a cytoskeleton. The most characteristic membrane bound structure is the nucleus. This feature gives them their name, also spelled "eucaryote", which comes from the Greek , meaning good/true, and , meaning nut, referring to the nucleus. In the nucleus the genetic material, DNA, is arranged in chromosomes. Many eukaryotic cells also contain membrane-bound organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and Golgi bodies. Eukaryotes often have unique flagella made of microtubules in a 9+2 arrangement.

​

The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (1992) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red alga.

​

Three main explanations for this have been proposed:

​

Eukaryotes resulted from the complete fusion of two or more cells, the cytoplasm forming from a eubacterium and the nucleus from an archaeon (alternatively a virus).

Eukaryotes developed from Archaea, and acquired their eubacterial characteristics from the proto-mitochondrion.

Eukaryotes and Archaea developed separately from a modified eubacterium.

​

The final hypothesis is currently the most accepted.

---

Eukaryotes (red algae) have existed 1.2 billion years.Essentially what happened is that cells within cells were developed, resulting in features (the nucleus and organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and Golgi bodies) that did not exist before. It could be argued that every single feature we see starts out as a duplication of body parts, certainly at the genetic level, and even at the cellular level. This would hold for the organelles as well: it is just cell wall material and existing DNA\RNA ...The issue is not where they come from but how they develop into novel features -- from the original duplication of material to the final form.This gets into the issue of transitions and intermediates in form, and I don't know if you want to take the topic in that direction. Seeing as all documented features have already developed and our "window" of observation is miniscule compared to the timeline of evolution AND the relative rarity in number of really distinct features (as opposed to adaptations of existing features to new uses), observing one is highly unlikely -- given your criteria for new.Many transitional features are documented in the fossil record, from legs to ears to wings.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

One time ago, didn't we already dismissing this embarrassing notion you have of "stump-like appendages"?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Perhaps it is because you insist on being boneheaded wrong as well as off-topic.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

My gosh people... Why do some of you treat me as if I just assaulted your grandmothers? I think my post was pretty unassuming. I'm just throwing out ideas and theories in the same fashion as everyone else.And you, RAZD, in particular, used to deal with me kindly. That all changed when you flew off the handle with the Deism thread. Can we just have a nice conversation without all of the mean spirited tactics? The Hopeful Monster theory was propagated by Dr. Richard Goldshmidt, an evolutionist, not a creationist.As for the mutations, there must have been a large number of qualifying mutations, in long sequences, if they were to have been necessary to be fixed in a population. What then was the selective advantage?These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to represent something beneficial-- at least in theory. But, the horizontal gene transfer from one species to another is not information newly introduced, right?-- only that its been reshuffled with minor variations due to mutation. How then would such a small allele frequency be fixed? It must have been a considerable mutation, seems to me.To demonstrate evolution in some appreciable way, shouldn't you at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory? What demonstrable evidence exists in the annals of the evolutionary theory to support this?

quote:

---

I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.

---

This is another typical two-step. See, when someone mentions that Coelacanth have changed very little, they say its evidence that nature does what works, even if it is not intentional. But you say that somehow doesn't apply in reverse. If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?Thus, you just invent ad hoc reasons that sound plausible as a way of justifying something that is clearly hypocritical and nonsensical. No kidding, which is why my question was asking why all of the proceeding species didn't retain these traits. Obviously you don't know. No one does. But I trust that you are seeing that you can't just make grand assumptions only to come to no actual conclusion. I have made the argument before, and I see it as insoluble from an evolutionary standpoint, but I echo again.Even with large populations and millions of years to back its play, there are not enough possible mutations to propel evolution. Think about it. Eventually they will reach a maximum capacity, and that number is far too little to account for the diversity of life here on here.If a typical gene has approximately 1000 base pairs, how many substitutions of a single base pair for another are there that will cause a change in an amino acid? Even the staunchest of evolutionists concede that generally less than one mutation in a thousand is beneficial, so that about two of these substitutions will be beneficial. That couldn't possibly be enough to account for the diversity.

quote:

---

And surely if such an evolution took place, as surely it would have to have happened for every single creature we see today at some point in pre-history, there should be transitional evidence of such gradations. So much so that laboratories, universities, and natural history museums would be littered with just such creatures in a timely, ordered sequence.

---

Because this would end the controversy. What evolutionist wouldn't want this kind of physical evidence? You'd probably soil yourself if such unambiguous evidence existed-- and I don't say that condescendingly. I think if you were to make such a discovery, it would be as grand as discovering the Arc of the Covenant would be to an archaeologist.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci