The Origin of Novelty

You are wrong. When, for example, you wrote this: ... you were completely wrong. This is why you were obliged to assert it without any substantiating argument or evidence. It is simply one of your articles of faith.Now, if it was true, don't you think you'd be able to show that it was true instead of just saying it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is this really a problem for you, pebbles? That we have two techniques to measure relatedness, one very accurate in fine detail and one adequate but not in such detail? That when we have the genetic information we use the one and when we don't we use the other? And you cannot comprehend this using two different measures dependent upon the facts available? Is this really the cause of your anti-intellectual heartburn? Rather asinine don't you think? Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity, I think.

Do you mean to tell me that you really don't know that 'not being able to prove something' is actually one of the tenets of the scientific method? It is accepted and understood that you simply cannot prove anything. The scientific method is built on the paradigm that you look for the 'best fit' hypothesis to the actual evidence. And this becomes the preferred answer unless and until some other theory comes along and tips it out. And this does happen - science is not like religion - fixed in dogma.When Alvarez proposed catastrophic events like the dinosaur wipe-out could have been caused by asteroids hitting earth, the world’s scientists were initially luke-warm at best. It simply wasn't then thought to be a significant occurrence.So what changed? The EVIDENCE supports asteroid impact. Asteroids are rich in the metal iridium, whereas it is rare in the earths crust. If the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 mil yrs ago the theory would say that the huge explosion of a 5-mile asteroid strike would inevitably leave a thin iridium layer all over earth at exactly the 65 mil yrs ago sediment layer - the so-called KT boundary - and that is EXACTLY what they found. Science accepts and amends theories in light of new evidence - and always has done.It's not a matter of proof - no-one can go back to the time of the dinosaurs but the evidence leads to the conclusion. The same procedures happen in criminal and civil court actions. In most cases only a murderer and the victim knows the 'exact' details with only the murderer still alive. Yet just because we can't go back to the exact moment of the scene of the crime - it doesn't stop murderers being convicted.....because of good old evidence yet again. It isn't about proof it's about best fit of evidence......and as far as life on earth goes - the ToE is not only the best fit - it is the ONLY theory that describes the pattern of the evidence AT ALL. Ah - so if you get the ToE thrown out what do you replace it with? Hmmmm....an 'intelligent designer'?? Oh - I see - just a handy label for 'God'.I was merely anticipating your next move Faith......

You are referencing a National Geographic magazine article and New Scientist against the wealth of peer-reviewed genetics papers? They may be nice coffee-table reading but they don’t come close to peer-reviewed literature.But in any case this doesn't matter a dime. The ToE states that primates are more closely related to humans than ANY other species. If DNA sequencing in the future means that we revise Orang-utans to be closer than chimps will not harm the theory in the slightest. It would just be revised - in the same way Newton's Laws of Gravitation were revised when Einstein added in relativity.That's what science does - constantly revises in the light of new evidence or advances in investigative procedures. Science is not dogmatic and has never pretended we have all the answers - we are back to the best fit for the evidence remember.Contrast this with the dogma of religion that doesn't move one iota in millennia.And where do you get your sources from....scientists working in the field of course. Put simply, only the men of science find out and improve the knowledge that have gone before - there are no other candidates to do it!You still haven't answered my question about why God would have 'fucked up' the engineering of earths living organisms so badly. How come mere humans can out-engineer your God??Ultimately — and this is what sticks you up every time — the ToE is the best candidate theory to fit in with the real world evidence. You have NO other viable theory whatsoever — if you had you’d have replaced the ToE and collected your Nobel Prize by now — as would anyone else from your camp who could have figured a better theory fit with the evidence.Doesn’t some little rational part of you think The world’s smartest people who have toiled for decades are confident that we have the current best fit theory with the evidence? I guess it’s looking like they are on to something here."Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Yep, and the thought was: boy does that demonstrate evolution rather than design or cryptic genes.It is what would be predicted by evolutionary theory, because mutations are random, while natural selection would favor any change that resulted in darker skin\fur.Enjoy

Here is my favorite example (from Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution):

quote:

---

---

North American Flying Squirrel (placental mammal) and Australian Sugar Glider (marsupial)Note that this demonstrates that evolution of novel features has occurred in both lineages, rather than any pre-packaged or cryptic genetics AND rather than any design reuse of genes ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : topicEdited by RAZD, : image

There are two existing threads on Schwartz and his ... views "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartzand Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" -- see Message 38 for his comments ...Enjoy

Hi Faith, Are you sure about this? If the only way to get from a wolf to a chihuahua or from a wolf to a Great Dane is by eliminating alleles, wouldn't that suggest that all those alleles exist in the original population - the wolf? So, every allele that is needed for the hundreds of dog breeds exists in the original wolf population and breeders simply eliminate unwanted alleles? And since each individual wolf has only 2 alleles at each loci,wouldn't it be theoretically possible for just the right combination of alleles to come together during recombination so that a wolf would give birth to a chihuahua or a Great Dane or a maybe labradoodle?And wouldn't it also be possible to arrange dog breeds in a hierarchical system so that the dog breed with the most alleles was the basal group and breeds with fewer and fewer alleles branch out?Do you think maybe something more than just reducing genetic diversity by eliminating alleles is going on here?HBD

Golly, are you doing this again?Look, just look up the last time you were wrong about this. And still not understood why you're wrong. But you could apply the same inaccurate description to whatever you would consider "macroevolution" --- shall we say the production of a giraffe from something more like an okapi? Instead of writing: "You can't get a chihuahua if its DNA contains Great Dane alleles and so on and so forth. The farther out in a true-bred line the less genetic diversity you get. THAT's MICROEVOLUTION", you could have written: "You can't get a giraffe if its DNA contains okapi alleles and so on and so forth. The farther out in a true-bred line the less genetic diversity you get. THAT's MACROEVOLUTION", and this would have been neither more nor less silly. Sure, by juggling with words you can describe microevolution as involving a loss of genetic diversity, but as you could describe macroevolution in exactly the same way, this hardly allows us to differentiate between them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

When someone suffers from a lack of growth hormone, that is a gain in function huh? Wow you are good. And you are scientifically trained right?What else would be a gain in function-being born with a cleft palate? How about being born with only one arm? Being born with out a fully functioning heart-would that be a gain in function, since it wasn't in the adult? Albinoism, is that a gain in function?No wonder evolution makes sense to you.You are going to stick by this statement later, right? That dwarfism represents a gain in function?

You do know what "deleterious" means, right? How about "novel", do you know what that means?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually Faith is pretty much correct here. The differences between such extreme dog breeds arise through loss or functions or through diseases to development pathways, such as gigantic-ism, or other developmental disease. That is why these extreme dog breeds have such short life spans and are so prone to other illnesses. They are basically sick versions of wolves.Now if you were Taq, you would of course say that dwarfism and gigantic-ism or deformed legs or faces are simply a gain in function. But calling diseases a gain in function is stupid, even for this forum.Some people are born with pituitary gland disorders which makes them extremely obese. This is also not a gain in function-unless you are Taq of course. This is how you can have dogs that are chihuahuas and great danes and still be the same species. Ah, the great power of Darwinism. Evolution through developmental diseases.

I agree that there needs to be a method of defining baramins. In sexual organisms I generally go by a 99.5 percent matching genome for fully genome sequenced organisms (focussing on coding regions, organisms can differ by large non-coding regions and still be the same baramin, through non-coding duplications) . But the establishing of these percentages seems to be a grey area, various parties throw around contradictory percentages so the field of genetics does not appear ready to accurately quantify percentages yet, I could be wrong in this.

Your post reveals that you haven't understood what Faith is trying to be wrong about. It might help if you were to look at her previous mistakes on this subject (see the link supplied above).

Ok A, I am happy to include you in with Taq as believing that developmental diseases such as dwarfism are a gain in function.Stick by this belief A, don't go back peddling later.