The Origin of Novelty

Why would you ever think that a single mutation would cause corneas to grow on people's elbows? This would obviously take more than one mutation. It would require a major reworking of the basic developmental pathways that lead to corneas and elbows.Also, they don' t mean accidental deformations. You are projecting your own biases onto the term. Accident implies intent. There is no intent here. Also, they are not deformations. They are changes in morphology and physiology. The process that causes these changes is not informed by what is or isn't needed by the organism. They are random with repsect to fitness.Would you classify the differences between us, chimps, and the hominid transitional species as being deformities?Can you point to a single difference between the human genome and chimp genome that could not be produced by random mutations? Just one? If not, your objections are baseless. Now you are piling logical fallacies on top of logical fallacies.

Amusingly, here is a fish with a random mutation -- an extra eye, not just a cornea or pupil. 3-eyed fish found in nuclear lake Of course there is a biological explanation for how the whole eye was caused by a mutation. (See Hox genes) - which is also why you don't normally see corneas popping up everywhere ... And what you see in the development of the eye from scratch is that it is not accomplished in a single mutation, but a series of refinements -- each mutation that benefits the organism gets selected for, and this takes the eye development to the next step.Step 1: detect light
Step 2: detect direction of light
Step 3: detect imageThis is how evolution develops novel features over generations.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...

What if the best theory from an unbiased view is that complete genomes somehow appeared in full on earth. Since then there have been mutational differences and rapid evolution as more and more limited species attempt to fill the ecological gaps left behind by masses of extinctions. Thus we observe a stasis within each genome that is only affected by some minor mutations and some rapid changes to allele frequencies within each species. Nested hierarchies are observed but only with minor changes between species that were obviously had identical genomes quite recently.Most succesful mutations involve deletions and disabling or changes to allele frequencies, the increases in the number of coding genes is never observed which points more to creationism (genomes started out nearly as they are) than evolution (many organisms increased complexity over time and have changed dramatically)

Yeah, what if?

Well I was kinda hoping you would put forward your reasons why the Theory of Evolution is a more accurate theory than the theory of creation to explain current biological observations.I also acknowledge the processes of evolution over short time frames, and not including the increased complexity of additional protein-coding genes over time.

Hi mindspawn I for one would have a much easier time accepting this type of hypothesis (not willing to call it a theory at this point) if it wasn't constrained to 6,000 years. A creation scenario would be much more plausible if the time frame was say more like (at least) 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 years since the creation event. But since most creationists want to cram all of earth's history into 6,000 years, it becomes a virtual impossibility to reconcile with the available evidence. Do you consider an old earth as a possibility? These statements are simply not true. What you need to keep in mind is that what we "observe" is a snapshot of history. Tiny, tiny pieces of what has happened. We don't expect to see significant changes (on the order of what creationists usually demand) in the comparatively small time period we have been studying evolution. Maybe 150 years seems like a long time, but in the grand scheme of things, its nothing - insignificant.Another thing I have noticed in some of your discussions is that you put too much emphasis on "coding genes." Coding genes get all the glory and recognition but they are only a piece of the whole picture. Theoretically, you could have two organisms with the exact same coding genes, but they express significantly different phenotypes. The major player in phenotype changes is in developmental processes. Developmental processes can use existing genetic materials and reorganize them into completely new structures depending on when and how they are expressed. I would encourage you to do some research into this area of study .. it is fascinating - and enlightening.Ultimately, the issue comes back to time. The earth is old: really, really old (I could accept that the accepted value of ~4.6 billion is off, but not by orders of magnitude). This is the starting point for how we look at the history of biological organisms. When we realize that the earth is indeed old, it changes the constraints we put on biological evolution.HBD

For a start, the mechanisms and processes of evolutionary theory are demonstrably real (mutation, selection, drift etc.). That's not true of any supernatural creation "theory".If you go out of your door in the morning and find that the ground is wet as far as you can see, and that the trees and bushes are soaked and dripping, the natural explanation that it rained during the night is infinitely better evidenced than the hypothesis that choirs of angels have been pissing down from the sky.If you look at a genome, and see two genes which look exactly as a pair duplicate genes should look, and you know that gene duplication is a demonstrably real phenomenon, then the best explanation for these genes is that they are paralogs. Suggestions like "the fairies might have put them there" can't really compete unless we can establish the existence of gene making fairies, can they?Perhaps you are lucky not to be debating me in your great debate, because I'd be asking you for a demonstrably real way in which apparent paralogs could arrive in genomes other than duplication.Shall we have a thread in which you can present evidence to support your hypothesis that duplications of protein coding genes are always disadvantageous, and I'll present evidence for the opposite. Or, if that is no longer your claim, you could support the view that additional neofunctional protein coding genes can't come into existence, and I'll present evidence that they can.Would you like to start one, so you can state your view clearly in the O.P.? I see no reason for it not to be public, but if you'd like it to be one on one to avoid getting piled onto, that's fine by me.I think you'll agree from looking at the peanut gallery that I'll be good at understanding the points you're trying to make.

Hi, Mindspawn.I don't think we've ever debated before, but maybe I just forgot. Either way, welcome to the thread! If you don't mind, when I discuss your hypothesis, I'm going to take terminology from panspermia and baraminology, because it seems to fit the bill.Your hypothesis is basically that life on Earth came from somewhere else (panspermia), and that the evolutionary Tree of Life is actually a "Forest of Life," rather than a single tree (baraminology).The only way that this really differs from the mainstream views of modern evolutionary biology, is that it rejects the notion of common descent (which is not a necessary tenet of the ToE, but one that is currently mostly agreed upon).So, your hypothesis would predict nested hierarchical patterns in the diversity of life, just as mainstream evolutionary biology does. But, it would also predict that the pattern of nested hierarchies would break down at some point, such that we would be unable to link all the separate lineages of organisms into a single Tree.The two hypotheses generally agree on the nested hierarchical patterns. Where we differ, however, is in whether there are "breaks" in that pattern. Evolutionary biology does not posit such breaks, so it does not have to provide evidence, one way or the other: it is incumbent upon baraminologists to produce additional evidence to support the additional mechanic of their hypothesis (the principle of parsimony).So, how can we identify where the pattern of nested hierarchies potentially breaks down? To me, it looks like the pattern doesn't break down: every level in the hierarchy seems to be nested inside a larger level, and the pattern of diversity at each level seems to differ only in magnitude, not in kind. But, I could simply be overlooking something, so let's see if we can "baraminize" our current Tree of Life.You sort of imply that biological novelties might hold the key. You claim that we never see new protein-coding genes emerge: we only see deletions, reductions, losses of function, etc.Well, if this is correct, I would predict that we could clearly divide up all life-forms into a distinct set of baramins, in which the basal forms of each baramin have the maximal number of protein-coding genes within the baramin, and all derived forms would have either the same number, or fewer, and none would have any novel genes or structures. And, I would also expect that we couldn't organize these baramins into a pattern that resembles the nested hierarchical pattern we would observe within a baramin (i.e., no two baramins should appear more closely related to one another than any other two).

I think you have some arguing to do before I accept the following as an invitation to do anything at all:

You know, I never thought of that, it would take more than one mutation to make a cornea, wouldn't it! Of course, one simple mutation would never even be close to something like a workable cornea, little yet a full dilating pupil. That would require a whole reworking of basic developmental pathways. That makes sense. Perfect sense! Its like the whole concept of a cornea is so complex, little yet an entire eye, that you just can't reduce it to one single mutation and call it anything. You are making good points, one should contemplate further on these. This one I think I also get. You are a believer in multiple universes, and in one of your universes, accident means intent. Fine, Fine, later we can talk using language from one of those other universes, but for now can we stick to this one?Honestly Taq, if you don't grasp that they whole concept of accident means the exact opposite of intent, the two words couldn't be more perfect antonyms, you are going to have a much harder time understanding the much harder philosophies we are discussing here.And yes, the difference between chimps and humans, according to your theory, is a difference is deformities. According to your theory, some deformities are just more useful than others. I know it sounds stupid and ridiculous, but hey, Dr. A needs something to belief in to protect him from the religious demons that haunt him.

Razd,I think you and Taq must be on the same wavelength. Its uncanny.A complete eye can suddenly pop up on a fish, fully formed, by the process of hox genes switches. And we now know the power of these developmental pathways-these complex sets of entire networks of genes, which are finely interlaced to create workable functions. And you were going to just throw this into the discussion as an aside as if it doesn't matter much to the problem of your theory.Because it seems you have never taken the time to consider, how does an entire system like how genes, which can form complete fully formed eyeballs, come about through random, accidental (remember accident means no intent in this universe) deformities? There is no rational explanation, using the confines of your theory, to account for this.I suppose if you think the creation of an eye is as simple as detecting light, detecting the direction of light, and than detecting an image than anything is simple. I feel you think your eyes are so simple, that there is no point in you even trying to use them to see the obvious problem with trying to do things in a willy nilly accidental step way.We now see that life's body plans are controlled by epigenetic pathways that are so complex that you can take them apart piece by piece and have them make any sense at all. How can epigenetics form through random mutations and natural selection? Its impossible.Its as ridiculous as claiming an atom can form by accidental positioning of electrons, and the strong nuclear force is just a product of randomness getting lucky. You not only disagree with Einstein, that God doesn't play dice with the universe, you disagree with your own eyes. You think they are also fooling you.Be careful, don't try to have a chugging contest with Dr. A. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Do you disagree with the observation based theory that if chemical self-replicators vary randomly in any physical environment, that environment will favour what functions in it over dysfunction?If you agree, why do you say "there is no rational explanation using the confines of your theory, to account for this"? "This" being complex combinations of genes producing complex organs, like the eye.If you know that mutations can produce advantageous novelty, and you know that natural selection can operate, on what basis are you questioning the theory?

You make far too many assumptions, which don't deserve to be assumed, for me to say that I agree with your statements.First, you assume that random, mistaken replications, given enough chances, would produce something which has functionality. There is not any observations, to assume this to be the case.So why would you say that I know that mutations can cause advantageous novelty? If anything, I only know that mutations can cause disadvantageous novelty. In virtually every instance where you claim that mutations are causing advantages, we can see that the price for those advantages is also to the detriment of the organism. Like say you could be born with no feet. Well, that is an advantage in that you probably wont contract athletes foot. And you probably won't step on any glass, or come down with ingrown toenails, and you won't get your feet caught in a car door. All of these can be said to be advantageous, if you want to use your thinking. But it doesn't tell me you can build a system of extremely complex and inter-dependent parts.

Repeat that? Advantage in what way? Are you really so dense as to think evolution finds having no feet an "advantage" since you won't stub your toe?You still have not learned the most basic tenet in evolution. Or is this another one of your deliberate obfuscations to further your inane argument?

Perhaps one could confine one's comments to what was said rather than extrapolating from it to draw conclusions about the person who said it.