Summations Only

idscience raised the old creationist question - how does macroevolution explain the development of novel features.The big problem with this question is that macroevolution does not cause any evolutionary change.All evolution occurs at the breeding population level by the process of microevolution - or just plain evolution: This is a feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: What separates (micro) evolution from the macro view of evolution (macroevolution) is the process of speciation, as evolution occurs within the breeding population, and nested hierarchies are formed by speciation events, and macroevolution is just a macro view of what occurs over several generations via evolution and speciation.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic change in species. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved geneological populations is subjective and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If phyletic change in species was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. So is divergent speciation necessary to explain novel features?Short answer: no.Longer answer: it could occur during the process of the evolution of the feature, and it may even result in a speciation event, but it isn't necessary to explain the evolutionary process for developing a novel feature.Thus we really only need look at phyletic change within species, or the basic process of evolution occurring over several generations.How many generations?But before we can begin to answer that, we first need to answer the question: what is a novel feature? So a novel feature would be one that did not appear in the ancestral population.We can look at dogs and ask couple of questions:

1. would a dog with short legs and an elongated body compared to wolves show a novel feature?
2. would a dog with webbed feet show a novel feature?

quote:

---

Newfoundland (dog)
The Newfoundland is a breed of large dog. ... Newfoundland dogs excel at water rescue/lifesaving due to their muscular build, thick double coat, webbed feet, and innate swimming abilities.[3]

​

The Newfoundland's extremely large bones give it mass, while its large musculature gives it the power it needs to take on rough ocean waves and powerful tides. These dogs have great lung capacity for swimming extremely long distances, and a thick, oily and waterproof double coat which protects them from the chill of icy waters. The droopy lips and jowls make the dog drool.[2]

​

In the water, the dog's massive webbed paws give it maximum propulsion. The swimming stroke is not an ordinary dog paddle. Unlike other dogs, the Newfoundland moves its limbs in a down-and-out motion, which can be seen as a modified breaststroke. This gives it more power with every stroke.[2]

---

bold added.I could not find any examples of wolves with these characteristics, so are they novel features?Creationists like to argue (pointlessly) that descendants of dogs will always be dogs (while evolution says the descendants will always be members of the dog clade), but what happens when these dog descendants develop novel features, like webbed feet?We know that our dog breeds occurred by standard evolutionary processes, with artificial selection of traits that appear in the dog populations chosen by the breeders. The breeders do not cause mutations to occur, just select those they want in the breed from the ones that occur.Is that enough?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : changed pictureEdited by RAZD, : title

this could also be added to Introduction to EvolutionEnjoy

Hi Tangle The natural selection that was observed in the peppered moth is addressed in Peppered Moths and Natural Selection. Expecting "red or barber's pole stripes" to occur on demand is a grave misunderstanding of how evolution works -- it is a reactive system not a purpose directed system. There has to be a cause for it to be beneficial to survival and breeding, and then there have to be mutations that can be selected.Expecting the peppered moths to be about the evolution of new features is a misunderstanding of what the peppered moths are used for: evidence of natural selection.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi NoNukes, Curiously, the mutations that cause short legs are fairly common in many species, including humans - it's called Dwarfism.The difference is between a random mutation occurring and it being spread into the breeding population is selection. Within the ecological challenges and opportunities imposed by artificial selection, there is a survival and reproductive benefit to having short legs for the dogs being bred that have them, and not having them would be detrimental. This is a rather demanding ecology to survive in, yes?Now the problem with the creationist\IDologist claim about information is that they don't define what the concept means or even more importantly, how it can be measured. There is, however, some evidence that we can look at which shows that either the concept "nature cannot create the information" is either falsified or irrelevantSee Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.And some lost wings (red). And diversified.And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, red again).And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).But the issue is -- if the loss of wings is information loss, then regaining wings is information gain ... or whatever was lost is not important to evolution.Then there is http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.htmlWhere a gene that enabled the bacteria to metabolize lactose was intentionally deleted (information removed?) and the bacteria regained the ability to metabolize lactose (information regained? ... or doesn't constrain evolution).There are other examples, and we could probably have a whole thread just on evidence that either information is gained, or the concept is irrelevant, to what can or cannot constrain evolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : changed img to thumb for faster loading

Now, if we take an ecology that selects for a carnivore with short legs ...

quote:

---

ingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Mustelidae
Subfamily: Mustelinae
Genus: Mustela
Species: Mustela nivalis

---

We would not be surprised.And if we then take a similar ecology and modify it to select for aquatic behavior with webbed feet ...

quote:

---

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Subfamily: Lutrinae
Genus: Enhydra
Species: E. lutris

---

We would not be surprised.And here we have just two members of the same family evolving according to different ecological challenges and opportunities, with the same kind of evolution seen in dogs.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed img to thumb for faster loading

Hi Mr Jack But the point is that the dechondroplastic legs could be selected for a specific ecology, such as occupied by the weasel.I also saw where the age of the Mustelidae clade was quite old and also undergoing some revisions due to genetic information.Mustelidae - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Mustelidae (from Latin mustela, weasel), commonly referred to as the weasel family, are a family of carnivorous mammals. Mustelids are diverse and the largest family in the order Carnivora, at least partly because in the past it has been a catch-all category for many early or poorly differentiated taxa.[citation needed] The internal classification seems to be still quite unsettled, with rival proposals containing between two and eight subfamilies. One study published in 2008 questions the long accepted Mustelinae subfamily, and suggests that Mustelidae consists of four major clades and three much smaller lineages.

​

The Mustelidae in general are phylogenetically relatively primitive and so were difficult to classify until genetic evidence started to become available. The increasing availability of such evidence may well result in some members of the family being moved to their own separate families, as has already happened with the skunks, previously considered to be members of the mustelid family.

​

Mustelids vary greatly in size and behavior. The least weasel is not much larger than a mouse. At the other end of the scale, giant otter can measure up to 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) in total length and sea otters can exceed 45 kilograms (99 lb). The wolverine can crush bones as thick as the femur of a moose to get at the marrow, and has been seen attempting to drive bears away from its kill. The sea otter uses rocks to break open shellfish to eat. The marten is largely arboreal, while the badger digs extensive networks of tunnels, called setts.

---

That is quite a diversity of behavior, with each of the different behaviors being enabled by specific variations within this clade. We can posit a link between behavior and selection, with successful behaviors⁽¹⁾ enabling survival and reproduction.When we look again at the Newfie dog we see more adaptation than just the webbed feet.

quote:

---

Newfoundland (dog)
The Newfoundland is a breed of large dog. ... Newfoundland dogs excel at water rescue/lifesaving due to their muscular build, thick double coat, webbed feet, and innate swimming abilities.[3]

​

The Newfoundland's extremely large bones give it mass, while its large musculature gives it the power it needs to take on rough ocean waves and powerful tides. These dogs have great lung capacity for swimming extremely long distances, and a thick, oily and waterproof double coat which protects them from the chill of icy waters. The droopy lips and jowls make the dog drool.[2]

​

In the water, the dog's massive webbed paws give it maximum propulsion. The swimming stroke is not an ordinary dog paddle. Unlike other dogs, the Newfoundland moves its limbs in a down-and-out motion, which can be seen as a modified breaststroke. This gives it more power with every stroke.[2]

---

We also see "great lung capacity for swimming extremely long distances, and a thick oily and waterproof double coat which protects them from the chill of icy waters" and a "down-and-out motion, which can be seen as a modified breaststroke" swimming behavior. It is unlikely, imho, that the webbed feet, oily coat or swimming pattern were specifically selected by the breeders, as it is more likely that they selected for basic swimming ability or simply for a dog that was good for a cold marine coastal ecology.These adaptations certainly enable a more active marine behavior than seen in most other dogs, which could easily maintain selection for even more active marine behavior. Thus we see that an initial small novel trait due to random mutations can enable modified behavior that allows the carriers to move into a slightly different ecology. In that ecology the novel trait is beneficial, and this causes the feedback selection to maintain the trait and increase further adaptation to that ecology.This fixes the novel trait in a breeding population, and can start the process of speciation or varietal diversification.Traits like shorter legs and webbed feet are seen in many species (including human), however selection generally returns the population to more normal legs and feet.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - while meme is defined as "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture" this is more of an enabled modification of existing behavior than a newly learned one.

In Message 1 I asked According to the (adjective) definition of novel as something "not seen before; new" and as webbed feet do not appear to be a characteristic of wolves, then technically they are a novel feature in this clade (wolves and dogs), a derived trait developed by mutation and adaptation of an existing trait.What if the finger\toe bones become elongated, so the webbing fills a larger area? That's just genetic variation, yes? Is that a novel trait?What if the elongated finger\toe bones enable new behavior?Page not found – METROGAYA My favorite frog, (Rhacophorus nigropalmatus), commonly known as Wallace's flying frog.

quote:

---

Glossary
Tetrapods
A group of animals with four limbs. Most tetrapods still have four limbs, although there are many differences between the limbs. Here are a human arm, a dog's front leg, and a seal flipper.

---

So when we combine webbed feet with extended finger\toe bones and other continued adaptations for a coastal marine environment (lungs, fur, etc) do we end up with something that is not a dog?

quote:

---

The harbor (or harbour) seal (Phoca vitulina), ... found along temperate and Arctic marine coastlines of the Northern Hemisphere. Skeleton

---

Again we see the homologies in the bones of the seal to those of dogs or wolves, typical of homologies for all mammals, with only a little (derived) modification of the arm and foot lengths. Is this what creationists mean by novel? (or do I have a sense of impending goal-post moving ... )

quote:

---

Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera ...from the Greek ...- cheir, "hand"[2] and ...- pteron, "wing"[3]) whose forelimbs form webbed wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, glide rather than fly, and can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread-out digits,[4] which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium.

​

Townsend's big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii

---

Again, the skeleton will show typical mammal homologies in the rest of the bones, and here we can see the homologous finger and arm bones through the thin webbed skin where the derived traits are the lengths of the bones.Is this a novel trait?It looks like nothing more than continued adaptation of webbed limbs to enable modified behavior, and perhaps open up ecological opportunities.Is this not a major innovation?Is this the result, accumulated over several generations, of normal evolution - the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations, from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities - or is this something else, some other, perhaps major\significant\wondrous process?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : word order

Hi Taq,Just catching up. Indeed. The trait can be inherited and augmented to a level not previously seen, like the human brain (although we can argue that we are not alone in this).The extra folds in the cerebral cortex enhance our thinking ability.Anatomy Notes: Wrinkles and folds on the brain

quote:

---

... Instead of being smooth and nearly featureless like a kidney or spleen, the cerebral cortex (the thin layer of gray matter forming the outer surface of the brain) is chock-full of wrinkles and folds. ...
... Sulci and gyri are simply a way of increasing the surface area of the cerebral cortex (and therefore the number of neurons) without greatly expanding the size of the skull....

---

Chimps also have convoluted brains, but not as much surface area, especially in the prefrontal cortex, so it is more a matter of degree than a different kind of brain.The commonality of the brain and the convolutions are homologies, while the extent of development are derived. Agreed, and further they claim that dogs will always be dogs (just as evolution says any offspring of dogs will always be members of the dog clade). And yet they seem unable to define what they actually mean by "something completely different" as a criteria to apply to evolved species.Is a web-footed breed of dog "something completely different" ? Or are we talking about Monty Python searching for the lost grail?Enjoy.

Hi intellen, and welcome to the fray. Sorry, but you seem to be misinformed about how evolution works. Badly. Mutations don't pop up when needed, nor do they occur suddenly in fully grown organisms. They occur during the formation (sex cells and fetal development) process and they are passed from one generation to the next if they prove advantageous to survival or breeding for the individual born with the mutation.It has little to do with swimming in strong ocean currents per se, rather it has to do with living in an ecology that has a significant semi-marine environment in addition to land environment, one that provides strong selection for good swimming ability.Dogs normally can swim, some better than others, and this allows them to take advantage of coastal ecologies. That is not how evolution works. At all. Look again at how the process of evolution was defined in Message 1

quote:

---

(1) The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so.Mutations occur in the developmental process of individual members of a breeding population, but selection of mutations is what alters the overall population distribution of traits. Because evolution involves both mutation and selection, evolution occurs at the breeding population level rather than at the individual level: an individual with a mutation is a variation within the species; when the whole breeding population carries the mutation, that population has evolved.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.The ecology of the Newfoundland Dog is predominantly coastal in an area with significant tides (Bay of Fundy for example), and this presents challenges and opportunities different from other ecologies, one that encourages swimming in rather cold water and encountering currents that go along with those tides. Many places along the coast that are open at low tide become islands or submerged at high tide.Having webbed feet is a fairly common mutation. When people are born with webbed feet it is called a deformity, because it is something that is not normally expected. This is a mutation that effects the completion of fetal development, as mammal fetuses have webbed limbs in early development, and the webbing is normally reabsorbed in the final stages.

quote:

---

Webbed toes - Wikipedia

​

Webbed toes is the common name for syndactyly affecting the feet. It is characterised by the fusion of two or more digits of the feet. This is normal in many birds, such as ducks; amphibians, such as frogs; and mammals, such as kangaroos. In humans it is considered unusual, occurring in approximately one in 2,000 to 2,500 live births.

​

...Syndactyly occurs when apoptosis or programmed cell death during gestation is absent or incomplete. ...

---

Any mutation that interrupts\disrupts this process results in webbed feet.A dog born with webbed feet would have an advantage swimming compared to one without, and thus this can be an advantageous mutation for a breed of dog that normally lives more around a marine environment than other breeds. If there is no disadvantage to having webbed feet, then they can be passed on to offspring.A Newfoundland Dog with webbed feet would have a significant swimming advantage over other dogs, and this could result in positive selection for webbed feet over many generations until it became a fairly universal trait for this breed.That there was positive selection within the breeding population of Newfoundland Dogs for swimming in cold ocean water is demonstrated, not by just one mutation, but by a coordinated chorus of mutations and adaptations:

1. Webbed feet
2. Large lung capacity
3. Thick, oily and waterproof double coat
4. Strong boned and muscular body

Each of these features involve selection over several generations within the breeding population to become dominant in the breed, and all of them show complementary selection of mutations for a pro-swimming selecting ecology.But the evolutionary process does not stop there: these mutations also permit changed behavior:

quote:

---

The swimming stroke is not an ordinary dog paddle. Unlike other dogs, the Newfoundland moves its limbs in a down-and-out motion, which can be seen as a modified breaststroke.

---

The swimming pattern normal to dogs has been adapted in the Newfoundland Dogs to a more efficient stroke that is enabled by their selected mutations for a pro-swimming selecting ecology. No other dog swims in this manner.Is this modified behavior not a new feature? (that is after all, the topic here). We have the Newfoundland Dog breed, with the above noted selection of pro-swimming mutations and modified behavior to a more efficient swimming pattern compared to other dogs, we have the observation of webbed feet mutations in many organisms (including people), and we have the genetic record that shows that Newfoundland Dogs, like all other dogs, are descended from wolves.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : topic note

Hi intellen, Define the Theory of Evolution (ToE) then. Not the process (which you quoted), the theory (or are you conflating the two?). If you do not understand the differences then it is highly likely that you do not properly understand either. No, it means that if there are no changes to the existing challenges and opportunities there will be no selection to respond to changed conditions. Change can still occur within the breeding population through neutral drift. Change in the distribution of hereditary traits withing a breeding population via neutral drift is still evolution. The existing ecology can still provide opportunities for adaptation and selection as well. The process of evolution is so universal that there are no breeding populations of organisms I know of that do not show evolution in progress in each generation. Wolves generally do not have webbed feet, wolves are ancestral to dogs, including Newfoundland Dogs. Completely, utterly, woefully, abysmally wrong.The individual organism does not change after birth (other than any maturation of features).The individual gets mutations (a) during the process of sex cell formation by the parents and (b) during the fetal development process as the various elements of the organism grow. After it is born there are no further mutational changes that affect its phenotype (other than any maturation of features). IF the individual has mutations that make it more successful at survival and breeding, THEN the mutation will be passed to the breeding population through its offspring. IF an individual dog is born with webbed feet AND there is positive selection for webbed feet, THEN webbed feet will increase in following generations through the offspring of those with webbed feet because they survive and breed better that ones without. Yes. This issue is regarding the natural selection of beneficial mutations within a breeding population, and yes there are thousands of studies of natural selection of beneficial mutations within a breeding population.Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis (and this is particularly true of mutations that result in webbed feet, as previously noted).Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations (Galapagos Finches and Peppered Moths are well known examples of such studies), and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. No, it is what you think, and what you believe, not what is science. If something can be observed, then it can be a fact that is used in science. Mutations for webbed feet can be observed, selection of beneficial traits can be observed.You are free to deny and ignore this, but it doesn't change the facts.The issue of this thread is how novel features evolve, not your misunderstanding/s of evolution, so the question here is:Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet and other traits adapted to more efficient swimming ability constitute the development of a novel feature within the Newfoundland Dog breed? One that does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or *combined* in ⁽¹⁾ other dog breeds? Yes NoEnjoy.⁽¹⁾ - Note that Message 43 lists other dog breeds that also have webbed feet, so this particular adaptation is not unique to Newfoundland Dogs. What is unique is the combination of adaptations for superior swimming ability: webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and the modified swimming behavior.Edited by RAZD, : added footnote, and amended statementEdited by RAZD, : clarity

Hi Wounded King Yes, we know that webbed feet per se is a common mutation, but I am not talking just webbed feet (bold added): Note that this is not just webbed feet but the combination of adaptations for superior swimming ability: webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and the modified swimming behavior.I have modified the post to clarify this point, Thanks.If intellen wants, he can consider the incidence of webbed feet in other breeds as confirmation evidence of this aspect in the evolution of the Newfoundland Dog.Enjoy.

Hi intellen, still having trouble with the concept of how evolution works, I see.Small surprise that you are garnering more and more replies trying to tell you why you are so wrong. That's what happens here when you are wrong. Please note that you still have not said what you think the ToE says: I asked you to define it.Until you provide a definition of the ToE I have to assume that you do not understand what the THEORY is, and are just blathering along in ignorance. Please complete this sentence (or paragraph):The Theory of Evolution is .................... Correct, and this affects the selection process. Curiously, that is not at all what it means. Go back and read it again, ... or do I need to call Poe on you?What it means is that IF there is a dog with webbed feet, THEN that dog would be more fit for survival in a coastal environment where the ability to swim is beneficial, as this ability would provide additional means to survive and breed compared to one without. Irrelevant when you start with a false premise.Lets review -- again -- what the process of evolution involves:

quote:

---

Message 1: All evolution occurs at the breeding population level by the process of microevolution - or just plain evolution:

​

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

​

This is a feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

​

​

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic change in species. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved geneological populations is subjective and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

---

Things to note here are:

1. Where the change in composition of hereditary traits occurs is in the upper left blue box -- in the production of offspring by the breeding members of the population.
2. Where the change in the frequency of the hereditary trait distributions occurs is in the lower right blue box -- in the selection by survival and being able to reproduce of individuals with hereditary traits that are (by definition) fit to survive and breed the next generation.
3. That the process takes many generations.

In each generation the selection process picks the organisms that are best fit to the current ecology (due to the particular mix of hereditary traits the individuals carry) to be parents of the next generation ... whether the ecology changes or not.It is a response feedback system because of the selection process over multiple generations, not because of the mutation process. Mutations are random and occur constantly, with each new offspring carrying many changes from the hereditary traits of their parents. The individuals with a mixture of hereditary traits that lead to higher survival and breeding will survive and breed more than individuals without such mixtures.The feedback is the traits that survive in the individuals that breed the following generation.The response is to reproduce more of the traits that survived, increasing their frequency in the population, mixed with some new variations (random mutations) in the new generation.In a static ecology the selection will be for stasis (offspring similar to parents), in a changing ecology the selection will be for adaptations to the new ecology (offspring with some differences from their parents). The selection process determines the mixture of hereditary traits that are available in the breeding population for producing the next generation.Go back and look at the picture again: it is a continual process occurring every generation. This process is - according to all the information I have - universal in all species alive today.The process of evolution is not the theory of evolution (nor is it the science of evolution). It is the process by which evolution occurs. I'm trying to pick out tid-bits from your post that have some relevance from the mixture of really bad understanding.Change in the ecology of a breeding population can be gradual (climate change) or it can be due to the population entering a new environment, and these changes can provide challenges and opportunities for altering the pattern of survival and breeding selection within the population, selecting the hereditary traits that are better suited for living in the new ecology.btwEcology refers to the interaction of the breeding species with all the elements of the environment it is living in,Environment refers to climate and organic surroundings and patterns, etc., such as a forest environment or a coastal environment. Random mutations do not "kick in" -- they occur continuously and occur many times in every new offspring. Some mutations occur with more frequency than others.Mutations that cause webbed feet is extremely common.If there is an ecology where having webbed feet is beneficial, this does not cause the mutation to webbed feet, it selects the mutation for breeding the next generation when the mutation occurs. Your failure to accurately restate in your words what you have been told correctly, shows that you do not understand this concept. Please -- discard your notion of "doggy1" and everything you think you know about evolution and start over.Start with population(1), or generation(1). Use the image above. Think about what the feedback is and what the response to that feedback is.If you need some references I can provide them.Now the topic is the evolution of novel traits, not remedial evolution, so again I ask:Do you agree that a breed of dog with webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and a modified swimming behavior, constitute the development of a novel feature within the Newfoundland Dog breed? One that does not exist in either the ancestral species (Wolf) or combined in this way in other dog breeds? Yes NoEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : the feedbackEdited by RAZD, : .

Hi foreveryoung, Mutations by definition are changes in the composition of traits. Mutations that are new to a population are new structures, whether those structures are visible or not (ie the chemical composition within a structure can be changed without apparent external change).There are several examples where new structures are observed in species, modified from previous structures by mutation. Webbed feet in a child from parents that are not web footed would be just one example. The difference between keratin and collagen is chemical. Evolution does not need to change one into the other -- rather what evolution would do is change the production process so that collagen is produced where keratin had previously been produced. This just requires a simple change in the amino acid sequence during assembly, a rather common mutation process.Not all the keratin production needs to be affected either, just some of it, to have collagen produced. Protein assembly is part of the function of a cell, and occurs in many locations within the cell, to say nothing about the multiplicity of cells within organisms, so that ONE could produce collagen while all the others continue to produce keratin.Keratin - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Keratin refers to a family of fibrous structural proteins. Keratin is the key of structural material making up the outer layer of human skin. It is also the key structural component of hair and nails. Keratin monomers assemble into bundles to form intermediate filaments, which are tough and insoluble and form strong unmineralized tissues found in reptiles, birds, amphibians, and mammals. The only other biological matter known to approximate the toughness of keratinized tissue is chitin.[1][2][3]

​

The usefulness of keratins depends on their supermolecular aggregation. These depend on the properties of the individual polypeptide strands, which depend in turn on their amino acid composition and sequence. ....

---

Collagen - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Collagen (play /ˈkɒlədʒɨn/) is a group of naturally occurring proteins found in animals, especially in the flesh and connective tissues of mammals.[1] It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals,[2] making up about 25% to 35% of the whole-body protein content. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also abundant in cornea, cartilage, bone, blood vessels, the gut, and intervertebral disc. The fibroblast is the most common cell which creates collagen.

---

Redundancy in production of various proteins and amino acid sequences means that mutations can affect some without affecting the total production nor necessarily affecting the survival of the organism.The topic is how novel evolve.Do you agree that webbed feet are not a dominant trait in (modern or ancestral) wolves? Yes NoWhen webbed feet are a dominant trait within a breed of dogs, does this constitute a new feature that did not exist in the ancestral wolf population? Yes NoIs this how novel features arise via evolution? Yes NoEnjoy.

Hi again intellen You haven't shown that you do. Please state the theory of evolution:The theory of evolution is ................................................................Once you have answered this we can evaluation whether or not you understand it. The PROCESS of evolution is not the THEORY of evolution. If you don't understand the difference you are not understanding either.The PROCESS of evolution is composed of two parts in a repeating alternating do-loop cycle:(a) changes in the composition of hereditary traits -- occurs through random mutation.(b) changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits -- occurs through selection (survival and breeding) You need to look at the whole cycle. AgainGo back and define the THEORY of EVOLUTION:The theory of evolution is ................................................................ The THEORY of evolution is not the same as the PROCESS of evolution, and your continued confusion of these shows not just a lack of understanding but an apparent inability to learn.You can show that you are not confused, ignorant, deluded, stupid or trolling by defining the theory of evolution:The theory of evolution is ................................................................ Still absolutely wrong.The process of evolution occurs in every generation in every breeding population because all living organisms live within ecologies, and those ecologies always involve challenges and opportunities: the challenge to survive to breed, the opportunity to survive to breed.The process of evolution is continuous. How the individual organisms in a population respond to those challenges and opportunities determines who survives, who breeds and who does not.The individual organisms do not change, they live, die, breed depending on how suited their hereditary traits are suited to surviving and breeding within their ecology.The response of who is able to live and breed goes into the next cycle of breeding with then added new mutations in the next generation.Consider this population trait distribution and selection: The distribution of traits has shifted to the left in response to the opportunities and challenges of the ecology.Does that help?Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, One looks at the title and the opening post to determine what the topic is. If in doubt ask the author.It is slightly off topic (as much of this thread is to date) because it addresses what evolution is rather than how novel features are formed or what a novel feature is. But the keratin genes do not occur in one locus in any organism. This is a protein, and there are many copies of the parts of cells that produce proteins. One can be altered without affecting the rest, one cell can be altered without affecting the rest. Which is what can happen very easily -- you don't need to suddenly have ALL keratin production altered. In fact evolution the easiest modification (mutation) would involve duplicating an existing sequence (thus developing additional keratin producing portions of the cell), and then adapting the redundant one to other uses, in this case collagen (or another new protein). Except that the cell doesn't have to start from scratch, all it needs to do is duplicate a nearly similar molecule production process and then alter it.Most mutations are neutral -- in other words most mutations are not subject to selection, but they can continue to be produced in descendant organisms because they are neutral to the survival and breeding of these organisms.If a use is later found for a new protein that is made, then *at that point* the mutation that caused this production becomes beneficial and can be subject to selection.In addition, selection does not occur on the genetic level, selection is based on the phenotype, the combination of traits, new and old, that are combined in the makeup of the individual organisms. Without collagen being produced by previous generations of organism there is no need for collagen in those organisms, and there is no "correct sequence" to be developed. Rather you have random mutations producing random variations on the duplicated protein, until some later date when one is made that is usable or that can be adapted to further use.Would this be the evolution of a novel trait? Yes NoEnjoy