The Origin of Novelty

In the context of population genetics, you cannot have mutations constantly cropping up or you will never get a new variety let alone speciation. The development of new varieties does depend upon establishing an isolated gene pool, and once established keeping the gene pool isolated from new genetic material, otherwise known as gene flow, but mutation would have the same effect. Whatever you find in the laboratory about mutations is really another subject.

Taq,I am simply following your line of reasoning. There is no such thing as beneficial or deleterious, it all depends on the environment. If someone is born with ALS or elephant man's disease, there may well be a time when humans consider this to be the most attractive type of male, because they look strong and able to withstand medium caliber bullets. So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does.Maybe people will be attracted to Homo-Dumbo, because of their feelings towards Republicans.

quote:

---

If mutations occurred the way you think they do, you could not establish a new breed or maintain a breed, and that I HAVE argued at some length. Mutations as a matter of fact INTERFERE with the normal processes of evolution.

---

No, that's absolutely false. Indeed it's not even true of selective breeding. If a mutation considered desirable should appear then breeders will incorporate it into their program, as they did with the Scottish Fold cat.In fact mutations are the "fuel" of evolution and absolutely essential to the process.

tempe,The point of this thread is trying to explain in a step wise fashion how new novel features arise in a population. How does a kidney form, or an ear.I have to use the evidence that your side is giving to form some sort of story that your side can agree on. Your side hasn't given much to go on, but finally we are getting somewhere. A mutation happens-something like dwarfism, or elephant mans disease, or fur that is suddenly ****** up, and makes itself dark, which just so happens to also be the same mechanism that protects animals from the harmful effects of sun rays-but this is just an accident, just like a cleft palate is an accident.So this is the first step-we need to establish this theory first.

But then you would be CHANGING your breed for some other breed. What I'm talking about is maintaining an established breed where you do not want novelty, you want purity. You want a PERFECT Tonkinese cat or Friesian horse, you do not want imperfections and most mutations produce imperfections. It's very very rare that you get one that you want to incorporate.And I also dispute that what are called mutations are really mutations anyway. I believe that most phenotypic occurrences that show up here and there within an established breed are nothing more than a new combination of a rare allele that has always been in the gene pool. This is only an assumption or an article of faith, and for the most part a matter of definition since what you call a mutation, if it IS desirable, is most likely not a mutation at all but a normally occurring allelic variant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I am confused by what this has to do with explaining how a new novel feature arises in populations. Are you describing one of the steps in the process? If not, can we get a new thread for this?

Bolder we have two entirely different arguments going here. PaulK is responding to me. Now maybe this is too confusing and we should have another thread, but I think if we just respond to those posts related to our own arguments it might be possible to avoid the confusion that bothers you.

I realize you are having two different arguments. I am not really understanding how your discussion is related to the topic. Can you just start a new thread which can explain it? Thank you.

quote:

---

But then you would be CHANGING your breed for some other breed.

---

So it would be evolution. That's supposed to be a problem ?

quote:

---

What I'm talking about is maintaining an established breed where you do not want novelty, you want purity.

---

That isn't evolution. Selection and gene flow can stabilise a population but there's no objective to keep a "pure" population in evolution.

quote:

---

You want a PERFECT Tonkinese cat or Friesian horse, you do not want imperfections and most mutations produce imperfections. It's very very rare that you get one that you want to incorporate.

---

Evolution isn't about maintaining some artificial idea of "PERFECT" breeds.

quote:

---

This is only an assumption or an article of faith, and for the most part a matter of definition since what you call a mutation, if it IS desirable, is most likely not a mutation at all but a normally occurring allelic variant.

---

No, it's what the theory SAYS happens. So it's what you've got to argue against. Arguing that the way that you think evolution ought to work wouldn't work is a bit pointless.

Then what would you prefer to call these mutations? You are just arguing semantics now.You need to deal with the facts concerning fur coloration in pocket mice. The facts are this. In black lava fields the allele for dark fur is very, very common. In the light brown desert the dark allele is non-existent. In crossing experiments, it is found that the dark allele is dominant over the light allele. So why do we have such a difference in allele distribution between the two environments? How do you explain this? But this isn't happening, and ALS and elephant man's disease continue to cause a decrease in fitness in our current environment. And we have seen what the environment does in the case of pocket mice. When will you deal with these facts?

quote:

---

I am confused by what this has to do with explaining how a new novel feature arises in populations

---

Well, you're right that you are confused. Reading my posts in context might help you understand better.

Exactly. You have novel changes arising from mutations that are then selected for. We call this evolution.

Because Bolder doesn't get why this discussion is on this thread, and I have to agree with him that it can get confusing with two different conversations going at once, it is going to have to be moved to another location, but I'll probably have to do it later.

No. The theory is that novel features arise by mutation. The rest of your gibberish has nothing to do with that question.I think at this point you're being willfully obtuse, such stupidity can hardly come by nature.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi, Mindspawn. I think this is a fair summary of our two worldviews, and I can see why you think creationism is more parsimonious. Still, I think your assessment is invalid, for the following reasons:

1. Abiogenesis isn't technically part of the Theory of Evolution. ToE explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. By comparison, creationism includes the origin of each life form as part of the explanation for the diversity of life (i.e., some of the diversity of life is explained by separate origins), so it requires both mechanisms.
   ​
   You could also look at it this way: the origin(s) of life are currently unevidenced. Parsimony dictates that the minimum number of unevidenced entities be assumed. Evolutionary biology (in it's current, "universal common descent" form) has 1 unevidenced origin, while baraminological creationism has many.
   ​
2. As far as I'm aware, there is not currently any interest in the biological community in generating a "Grand Universal Theory" of biology, but it might be possible to view Abiogenesis as the "first mutation." It wouldn't be a perfect fit, because Abiogenesis is thought to have been a protracted period of stochastic chemistry that resulted in a simple replicator, rather than a single "mutation," and, since it predates replication, the term "mutation" doesn't actually apply. But, if we generalized to "stochastic chemical processes," "heritability" and "selective filters," we might get a GUT of biology that encompasses both.

----- Yes, I do. I think I'm about to break my promise to myself about being neutral and patient, but this debate is becoming recursive. The nested-hierarchies thing really is very excellent evidence for evolution, and I don't feel like you've made a good-faith attempt to understand why we all think this.For example, your response was that a mechanism of intelligent design could hypothetically result in a nested-hierarchy pattern that looks like the one we see. This is technically true: a designer could hypothetically generate any pattern he wanted, and "shits 'n giggles" might be the only explanation.But, it's not what we would predict from intelligent design. We would expect an intelligent designer to use the best design possible for each baramin, and, given the large diversity of baramins, we would expect that, in at least a few cases, this would involve things like, for example, a bird with a placenta or a mammal that lays eggs.Since there are 10,000 species of birds on the planet, and none has a placenta, the creationist is forced to argue one of two things:

1. Viviparity (live birth) just couldn't possibly work for any of the niches for which bird baramins were designed.
2. For some unknown reason, the designer refused to ever break from his "bird" mold.

But, how is it possible that, in all 10,000 niches that birds fill, not one of them calls for live birth?
And, how is it possible that, in all 1000 niches that bats fill, not one of them calls for egg-laying?Surely at least some of these 11,000 niches would have been filled better by a blended "bat-bird" organism, right?By comparison, according to Wikipedia, you can get a Nissan Altima with a 5-speed manual transmission or 4-speed automatic transmission; any of three different engines (plus an electric motor on the hybrid variant); and you can even get a 4-door sedan or 2-door coupe.So, if Intelligent Design is like automobile design, why can't we get a bird with a placenta?Edited by Blue Jay, : "qs" tag