The Origin of Novelty

Your*

You have not addressed the issue with any sort of evidence, other than your own incredulity. So, no, you have not addressed the evidence.As Taq has pointed out, the mutation changed how much melanin was released, which had a change on the phenotype of the mice, this is definitely a novel feature that allowed the pocket mice to survive in a different niche, the lava fields.Also, I am pretty sure there was more than one example of novel features evolving given to you, perhaps you were banned while they were being posted...Here are some others from this thread and the peanut gallery for the debate between mindspawn and RAZD... Message 501 Change from jaw to ear
Message 33 Antifreeze in fish
Message 510 Cytochrome C
Message 512 Adaptations to high altitude through mutation
Message 446 Siberian Foxes
Message 342 This is mine and deals with a deleterious mutation, but still a novel feature...novel, remember only means new for that genetic line. Dwarfism is novel when the individual is born to a family with no history of dwarfism. However, it is generally deleterious.
Message 201Vadoma People
Message 203Blue Chicken Eggs
Message 35 Starch consumption Talk about moving the goalposts...You asked for a mutation that led to a novel feature, which the pocket mice are definitely an example of. The mutation to the mc1r gene caused more melanin to be released, leading to darker fur. Now, that this has been shown, you have decided to fall back to well, they could produce melanin before, they just didn't produce as much. Which you would be correct on. However, the mutation changed HOW MUCH melanin is released, which led to a novel phenotype, i.e. dark fur. This directly addresses that which you asked for and so now you have to move the goalposts back and say that you were asking for the mutation that led to the production of melanin in the first place. Ahhhhhh...there it is. The mark of a person who knows he has absolutely no argument. Claim that the moderation is biased against you. You, who only got a 24 hour suspension for the same offense that someone else got 5 days. Stop crying about it and actually provide evidence, other than your own incredulity, and maybe you might make more sense. The problem you run into is not that the mods are against you, but rather that you refuse to provide any evidencial support for any of the statements that you make other than your own thoughts. And sorry to say, from your posts, I do not trust your thoughts to be correct. After all, this is in the science forums, so evidence is required.So, please explain how you see the origin of novelty, without evolution, and please provide evidence for your assertions outside of your own mind. Because Taq has already shown you a novel feature, so what is your explanation for it?

I am definitely beginning to think that you are correct, sir.

No, you have dismissed it out of hand for no specific reason. How so? Please explain.If the mutations increase the binding affinity of MC1R to alpha-MSH this will increase the signal at low levels of alpha-MSH which will increase basal levels of melanin production. And yet we see parts of the system evolving right in front of our eyes. Because the differences between the genomes include beneficial mutations that conferred selectable novel functions.

Hi Bolder-dash,The thread for raising concerns about Forum Guidelines issues is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color]. You've been informed of this many times. Messages in discussion threads like this one should focus on the topic. Persistent Forum Guidelines violations can result in temporary suspension, the duration dependent upon frequency. Again, this type of issue should be raised in the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread. I will answer this in this thread for you, but this is the last time.Offering additional evidence is not moving the goalposts. Changing criterion after the fact is moving the goalposts.Edited by Admin, : Minor correction: "changing the goalposts" => "moving the goalposts"Edited by Admin, : Fix links.

Exactly! Does anything in your evolutionist deductive reasoning require mutual exclusivity of the two concepts? But not just a failsafe plan, creativity and variety and beauty are also goals in their own right. Not everything has a practical purpose, some things in nature are beautiful, some are amazing in their sheer uniqueness. Not actually, I'm constructing nothing, I'm merely expressing the obvious regarding the nature of the Creator. It would be natural that our Creator creates in logical patterns, and yet also produces amazing exceptions to standardized patterns. If creationism cannot be contradicted by reality, it is a strength, not a weakness of the theory. The evolution/creation debate is more likely to be solved by mathematicians. Genome sequences have to be compared to current observed rates of mutations to see which position is more mathematically tenable. Certainly each view has the potential to be falsifiable, but proven mutations, and proven mutation rates have to be defined. Under evolutionary assumptions, most genomes are accumulated mutations, under creationism they are created with few mutations. Comparisons can be made, mutations are being more clearly defined. I believe that the evidence will increasingly point to creationist time frames, let's see what the future holds.

Maybe you should say the same to Bluegenes regarding his so-called superior view on human diversity which he seems reluctant to describe.

Humans and chimps evolved, therefore their differences are evolved, therefore their differences are proof that novel functions evolve?? What an interesting circular argument!!!Someone please help this guy with deductive reasoning......(ps moderators, I'm not being personal here, I am merely pointing out his complete failure to reason his point to any degree that makes any sense. Maybe a little moderator public guidance will help him, it seems to be freely given here to Bolder-dash)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

HAHA even I said I was speculating, so your comment that I'm speculating is perfectly true and already admitted by me, so you are a little late in pointing it out. You seem to be have been distracted from my real point.This is what I said, my point stands: If you feel you can confidently mix and match parts of the human eye with parts of the octopus eye, and guarantee an improvement, I would see you as overconfident when we do not yet know all the facts about biology. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Hi Mindspawn,Please don't follow Bolder-dash's example. He is extremely reluctant to follow moderation. All his suspensions have been for that reason. All viewpoints are welcome here, and as you may have noticed, we never delete messages in part or in full. But the proper place to make complaints is the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread.But I will answer this complaint here: Looking at Bluegene's last post (Message 623), it seems very detailed and nothing at all like Bolder-dash's (paraphrasing), "There are at least 3 or 4 reasons you are wrong, all too boring to go into here...". I see no similarity at all. Taq replied to your response to Bluegenes, and you have not yet responded. It appears to me that you are all three in the middle of a detailed discussion.Moderation here is not biased, but neither is it ignorant. The moderators do tend to be well informed about what we know and what we don't know. So while moderators won't take sides, neither will they pretend ignorance when they are not. Moderators take an interest in preventing threads from diving too far down pointless ratholes of unsupported claims, trying to keep threads productive and moving constructively forward.Please, no replies in this thread.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Taq, what makes you sure that there is a mutation, rather than merely changed alllele frequencies? If differing alleles already exist in the mouse population, some for light color, some for dark color, don't you think its only natural via adaptation through variation and selection that the new allele frequencies of both light and dark populations would reflect the best allele combinations for that region respectively?The best way to detect mutations is to isolate a population and then check for absence of mutations in the original population. When this isolated population then shows genetic changes, this is proof of mutation. No such study was done with the mice, the results of the study could merely be a reflection of changed allele frequencies and nothing more. The dark alleles are dominant with the dark mice, the light alleles dominant with the light mice. Simple as that. Evolutionists over estimate the predominance of mutations due to their assumption that most of the genome is there from mutations.

I just like fairness to both sides. Not following anyone's example. the wording is different, the point he was scolded for is the same: I wish Bluegenes just stated which region he thinks has more human diversity and why, instead of indicating I am wrong and yet being mysterious about his correct answer. I've nothing against his silence on the matter, if he doesn't wish to defend his view that's fine by me, what I don't like is that a creationist is advised against holding back his views, yet the evolutionist is not advised against holding back his evidence.The impression you give is that you are intervening in the debate on behalf of evolutionists because you think it will be in their favor if Bolder-Dash gives detail. This is the impression I have of you. An honest truth is that the least biased among us realize its impossible for the human mind not to have bias. Once you realize this, you are more able to eliminate your most biased reactions, knowing that a lifetime of trying will never eliminate bias. Maybe this advice will help you in future dealings with creationists.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

If you don't mind, I will copy and paste my reply to Faith who asked the very same question:+++++++++++++++++++
1. Selection pressure. They surveyed many regions across the desert spanning Arizona and New Mexico. This survey included two black lava fields (one in Arizona and one in New Mexico) separated by 750 km, the areas immediatly around each lava field, and the desert between the two lava fields. What they found is that in between the lava fields there were no black mice. Even more, there were no alleles associated with dark fur even though light fur is the recessive allele (it only takes one dark allele to have dark fur). On the lava fields, the vast majority of mice had dark fur, and the dark allele was very, very common. In the areas directly around the dark lava fields there was a mixture of the two phenotypes. Right away, one thing is very appararent. There is extremely strong negative selection against the dark allele in the light colored desert that separates the two lava fields. If the dark allele had emerged in the light colored desert it would have disappeared in just a few generations. The only way that the allele could survive is if the mice carrying the mutation moved into the black lava fields.2. Variation of the alleles. From the paper, "Finally, the pattern of nucleotide variation observed among Mc1r alleles from the Pinacate site suggests the recent action of positive selection. Thirteen polymorphic sites are variable among the light haplotypes, whereas only one site is variable among the dark haplotypes (Table 1). " This means that the dark allele had gone through a much more recent selection event than the light allele. Therefore, the dark allele emerged after the light allele.3. Age of the lava fields. As was demonstrated above, you need black lava fields in order to have the dark allele. So how old are the lava fields? Very recent, geologically speaking. They are around 1 million years old, much younger than the desert landscape that the ancestral populations adapted to. As shown by both the nucleotide variation and selection pressures, the recent appearance of the lava fields is just one more piece of evidence showing that the dark allele arose through recent mutations in a population that did not have dark fur.
++++++++++++++++++++But just as a general question, what is it about the differences in the dark allele that make it impossible to produce through random mutations?

We can confirm that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, such as the comparison of ERV's. This is not a circular argument. We can also confirm that there is a signal of selection and random mutation within coding regions as shown by Ka/Ks values.But perhaps you can actually answer my question. Which of the differences between the human and chimp genomes could not be produced by the observed mechanism of mutation?

[qs]Exactly! Does anything in your evolutionist deductive reasoning require mutual exclusivity of the two concepts? But not just a failsafe plan, creativity and variety and beauty are also goals in their own right. Not everything has a practical purpose, some things in nature are beautiful, some are amazing in their sheer uniqueness. [/quote]None of which explains why life falls into a nested hierarchy. Paintings and sculptures are beautiful, but they do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Hand tools are useful, but they do not fall into a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is not a logical pattern for a designer. Never has been. No, it shows that creationism is unfalsifiable which is a major weakness. It demonstrates that creationism is nothing more than a dogma. Why would those mutations fall into a nested hierarchy? You still have not explained this.