Summations Only

Hi intellen,Please admit to yourself that you are not understanding evolution, the process or the theory, as then you can begin to learn what these are. Not in any known species. Changes in the composition of hereditary traits are cause by random mutations that occur during the creation and development of offspring. Yes, BUT natural selection is one of many mechanisms that do this, AND natural selection can select for stasis rather than changes in the frequency distributions. No.Now lets get back to the topic:Does this involve the evolution of novel traits? Yes NoIf no, then please start a new thread on (a) what you think the theory of evolution is and (b) how the process of evolution works in breeding populations.Enjoy.

Hi again intellen, Actually what I was saying was that both are part of the complete cycle, and that the process is not complete until the cycle is complete. This still does not say what the theory is. The theory of gravity is a theory of how gravity behaves is a statement that tells us nothing about what the actual theory of gravity involves.The theory of evolution explains the origin of species and other aspects of evolution. That is part of it. Let me bold that same part in my statement that you keep quoting: If the change is catastrophic enough to prevent the process of evolution to adapt, then the population will go extinct.Rather obviously though, if a population is expanding into an additional ecology, then it is not a catastrophic change for the population portion that can take advantage of the additional ecology.Not all changes are catastrophic, they just need to be a little different to alter the selection process.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi foreveryoung, Please don't take this so hard, I said slightly off-topic.The off topic part involves how evolution works ( and this involves intellen as well as you).When you assert things such as This is making an unevidenced, unsupported statement that purports to delineate a limitation to evolution.These assertions are invalidated by evidence that contradicts it. One such was already provided by Tangle Thus your assertion that novel features do not evolve is falsified. The evolution of collagen has also been addressed by several people.What you haven't addressed is whether the group of characteristics that improve the ability of the Newfoundland Dog -- webbed feet, large lung capacity, thick, oily and waterproof double coat, strong boned and muscular body, and a modified swimming behavior -- constitute a novel feature: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 NoAddressing this question will be on topic.Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, Opinion is not science, nor has it been shown to have any effect on reality in any way. To you, however without any evidence to show that your premises are correct it is just your opinion again. Logic based solely on opinion is not necessarily valid in any way, and is as likely to be wrong as not (if not more so - there are more ways to be wrong than right). If it is a scientific thought experiment it would need to be based on evidence. Otherwise it is just fantasy, made up. If the premises are faulty or imaginary there is every reason to expect the conclusion would be faulty or imaginary. A house of cards only stands if each layer is supported by the one below and the bottom layer rests on a firm foundation - you can't build a house of cards in the air.Enjoy.

Hi intellen, Curiously new species have been observed. Hence your assumed limitations do not in fact exist. No, natural selection ALONE will not be the cause, but natural selection in combination with mutations and the other parts of evolution can and have been the cause of new species. Because discussing one without the other is incomplete and a failure to look at the whole picture. It's like playing checkers with only red pieces. Because (1) evolution is continuous, it doesn't turn off and on, and (2) going to another place means going to a different ecology, one that has different opportunities and challenges. Because this is precisely what we are talking about with the Newfoundland Dog -- they went to another place and have adapted to that place to be able to take even better advantage of it than when they first went there. Ecological challenges and opportunities exist in all cases, including current habitats of all living species. They are challenges and opportunities for survival and breeding. The individuals of a breeding population that succeed in meeting the challenges and taking advantage of the opportunities become the parents of the next generation. This means that the inherited traits and mutations that they posses get passed to the next generation instead of those of the individuals that did not succeed. (1) they already have done that, (2) there are ecological challenges wherever they would go.When a species moves to another habitat it is because they are able to survive and breed there, even though the challenges and opportunities are different. Because evolution is an unavoidable continuously on-going process that cannot be avoided (except by extinction, as has occurred for most life forms in the natural history record). No, your fantasy (a) is not about ToE or evolution, and (b) does not apply to those of us that do know what evolution and the theory of evolution (which you still have not defined, and which, curiously, is not needed in this thread).Your failure to understand does not apply to others, and your opinions do not affect reality. Which just means a different set of challenges and opportunities for the continuous process of evolution to respond to.Can you name a single species that does not show any change from generation to generation?Can you name a single place where ecological challenges and opportunities do not exist? And you continue to be wrong, because you fail to look at the complete cycle of mutation and selection. One dog with webbed feet in a breeding population is a mutation, when that trait is passed to offspring and becomes the dominant trait in the breeding population, then that is selection, and the population has evolved. Curiously this is both wrong and irrelevant. What is "harmful" in relation to mutations depends on the ecological challenges and opportunities, so what is "harmful" in one can be beneficial in another. Natural selection is what determines the available hereditary traits for the next generation -- those from the individuals that survive to reproduce.These surviving traits are then put into the reproduction part of the cycle, to be mixed with new mutations and to form offspring with a mixture of the surviving traits and new mutations, the next generation ready to be tested by selection. It is a part of the cycle, failure to look at the whole cycle means playing with half a deck of cards. And you still have failed to show that you know what you are talking about here because you have still failed to define the theory of evolution nor shown that you understand that it is different from the process of evolution. Curiously, this thread is about the evolution of novel features, not about the evolution of new species. If you want to discuss your misunderstandings of evolutionary processes in the formation of new species we can start a new thread, and perhaps stop this nonsense of yours that is not on topic for this thread.The cause of speciation is more complex than simple evolution. Okay, how about both operating on the same population in the same ecology ... seeing as I have been talking about both operating on the same population in the same ecology? What does the theory of evolution say? What IS the theory of evolution in your mind? No, we can talk about both natural selection and mutation, and also about various other aspects that are ALL involved in the process of evolution.We can also talk about the topic: the evolution of novel features.If you want to discuss your misunderstanding of evolution in context of the development of new species, then we need to start a new topic -- that is off topic here. And curiously, I and everyone else have been talking about both, because both are part of evolution. Only people that do not understand evolution (like you) try to separate them. It is PART of the cause. Once again you demonstrate your willful ignorance of what evolution is (to say nothing about your failure to define the theory of evolution). 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.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.It is like a dance: you need both partners to tango. You need to complete the cycle for evolution. "Parents of the next generation" carry the hereditary traits selected by survival and breeding success. "Offspring" carry the traits selected in their parents generation plus mutations on some of those traits that may or may not be beneficial for survival and breeding success. Individuals of this generation that pass selection for survival and breeding become parents of the following generation, and the whole cycle repeats. Thank you for proving once again that you do not understand evolution in the slightest: amusingly, adaptation is achieved by evolution. Which you still have not defined ...Nor is the THEORY of evolution involved in this thread where the topic is how novel features evolve. Amusingly evolution has been observed a great number of times actually occurring in the actual real world. Of course this involves the real world evolution of biology and not your fantasy misunderstanding of same. No matter where they move they will face ecological challenges and opportunities and no matter how large or small these are, the populations will continue to evolve in the continuous process that is real world biological evolution.No population lives in isolation from ecological challenges and opportunities. Evolution is always ON. It is a continuous process that happens in every generation of every species that I am aware of: if you disagree then please provide an example. And once more, accompanied by a chorus of laughter: adaptation IS evolution. And again, curiously, this thread is not about the THEORY of evolution but about the evolution of novel features, the THEORY of evolution is not the PROCESS of evolution, which is what is being discussed in relation to the evolution of novel features.Nor have you provided your definition of the THEORY of evolution in order to show that your understanding of the THEORY of evolution is any better than your limited grasp of the PROCESS of evolution.Claiming an undefined strawman is wrong by assertion alone, no matter how many times it is asserted, does not prove that reality is wrong. And again: adaptation IS evolution. Failure to understand this simple concept shows that you in fact do not understand evolution. Just about everything. Evolution is continuous, the challenges and opportunities for survival and reproduction exist in every single possible ecology in the world, and there is absolutely no guarantee that "a better place" exists than the current ecology, or that it would be possible to get to one that may be "better" without going through a lot worse, and finally ... even in that fantasy "better place" evolution would still occur in response to the challenges and opportunities that exist in that ecology.For dogs with webbed feet a coastal ecology IS a "better place" than it is for dogs without webbed feet, which is one of the reasons why webbed feet were selected in Newfoundland Dogs. Curiously a large number of species on the Galapagos Islands have actually been observed to evolve.Amusingly adaptation IS evolution.Interestingly this does not involve the THEORY of evolution, but the PROCESS of evolution, just as this thread is not about the THEORY of evolution but about the PROCESS of evolution and the development of novel features.You don't know what evolution is, and that apparently is what makes you appear so incompetent to (a) discuss the topic or (b) state the theory of evolution. This lack of understanding is demonstrated by your next statement: Evolution started before the first life appeared on this planet and it has been a continuous process ever since then. There is not one species that does not show evolution occurring in every generation. No matter where a population moves it continues to be affected by evolution, and there is no place where it can get away from it. Where is evolution? All around you. Every single living thing shows evolution. Individuals are born with a mixture of hereditary traits inherited from their parents and some mutations of traits from their parents. If those mutations provide a benefit to survival and reproduction, then the individual with the mutation can pass them on to their offspring. If the mutation continues to be beneficial to the individuals of a breeding population within the ecological challenges and opportunities that exist, then the mutation will continue to spread in the population due to the success at survival and breeding (selection). Once it becomes dominant in the population, this mutation is "fixed" and becomes a characteristic trait of that population.Mutations that cause webbed feet are numerous (many points in the development of the fetus can be interrupted and result in webbed feet), and are commonly observed. This is a fact.The development of other traits that improve the swimming ability of the Newfoundland Dog (lungs etc) show strong selection for improved swimming ability, and thus for webbed feet in that breed. Garbage in garbage out. When you make up stuff you are no longer talking about the science. You can observe the incidence of mutations that cause webbed feet in other breeds of dogs and compare that incidence to the Newfoundland Dog and thus test and show that there is a heightened incidence in the Newfoundland Dog that does not exist in most other breeds nor in wolves.You can compare the genomes of dog breeds with webbed feet to the genomes of wolves.You could take a breeding pair of dogs and select among their offspring for swimming ability. Hope you have a long life ahead of you. Sadly, you are so very correct that you cannot argue with us, because you DON'T know. (1) it isn't the "main mech"
(2) it has been extensively tested and
(3) it has actually been demonstrated to occur, over and over and over.Your ignorance of these facts does not alter this reality. Absolutely irrelevant to the topic ... the evolution of novel features.Please start a new thread if you want to discuss your concepts further.I mean it. Start a new thread stating what you think occurs. Then start a new topic and stop regurgitation nonsense fantasy on this one.Please stop wasting posts on this thread with your comments that do not address the formation of novel features, but instead showcase obstinate misunderstanding of evolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mrclrty

Hi Pressie, I know of some examples, and they can be added to this thread at any time. One example already provided was by Tangle in Message 61:

quote:

---

... the the Italian Wall Lizard.
This creature managed to evolve new features in 25 years - ...

---

It certainly is topical, as the intent of this thread was to discuss the evolution of novel features without needing to get into the issue of speciation. Or to mean "a change big enough that I just can't believe it happened in one individual ... so it must be false ... " type of nonsense.Enjoy

Hi Chuck77, I was just thinking of expanding this myself.We know that mutations occur during the reproductive process, changing the genotype of the individuals being born and raised.We know that selection occurs during the process of living to be old enough to reproduce - those that survive and reproduce are successful.The population is normally (not always) composed of multiple age groups of organisms, so you have a mixture of young and old individuals that have a range of traits they have inherited that have helped make them successful.As older individuals with an older mix of hereditary traits die off they are replaced by younger individuals with more recent mixtures of hereditary traits. This shifts the available hereditary traits in the whole population towards the younger mixtures, continually over time (multiple generations). You can see this pattern in the fossil record for pelycodus:A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

quote:

---

... Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average. ...

---

There is a general trend towards larger and larger individuals from the bottom to the top (there is also a speciation event at the top where the branches diverge into two non breeding daughter populations, one getting smaller).As the selection process continues, the traits available in the breeding population change, and thus the offspring have different starting traits in their parents than their parents had.Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, You assume that I need to falsify any fantasy you construct. In effect you want me to do the work that YOU should do if you want me to consider your concept to be anything but fantasy.I don't need to falsify fantasy, I can simply ignore it. Curiously, I can just assume that your opinion is pure fantasy, and proceed with my life unaffected, just as I proceed to do after reading Harry Potter stories.Now if you gave me a reason that I should consider your imagination to involve some valid aspect regarding reality, then I might need to pay attention to it, investigate the empirical evidence that shows whether such a concept is valid or invalid.This reason would involve you substantiating that it is something other that fantasy.I have a clay figurine of a three horned toad
The maker showed me information that the figurine is based on an actual species of toad
Therefore the figurine represents actual three horned toads that actually existsCan you falsify this conclusion?
Can you falsify the premises?Do you need to?Could I substantiate the first premise by providing a picture of the figurine?
Could I substantiate the second premise by providing a notarized affidavit from the maker with a photo of the toad?
Is my logical structure valid?Would you then need to consider that my premises and conclusion are true? This is a falsified assertion. See Message 61 for one example. There are many examples.This is also a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times):CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

quote:

---

Claim CB101.2: Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.

​

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103. Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.

​

Response:

​

1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.
   ​
2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
   • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
   • adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
   • the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
   • evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
   • modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
   • evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
   ​
3. There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
   • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
   ​
4. Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

---

If we look at plants we can also see incidences of new features arising that did not exist in the population in previous generations. This claim has been refuted by several replies already, and it is also refuted by point 4 above.Thus there IS plenty of evidence that your opinion is wrong, and it has already been provided.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi intellen, The question on this thread is the evolution of new features, not speciation. Well it is usually hard to understand falsified comments. Speciation has been observed to occur by just this process, therefore the irrefutable evidence is that speciation in fact occurs. Amusingly that is not how it works. This is also an absurd and total misunderstanding of how genes (= traits) work and how the reproductive process works. Indeed, this is your fantasy, and not how science has determined that evolution works.Conclusions based on false premises are false. Curiously, you have still failed to show what you mean by the THEORY of evolution, all you have provided is your totally mixed up, messed up, misrepresentation of evolution ... and this totally mixed up, messed up, misrepresentation of evolution if yours would certainly mess up science, if scientist in general and geneticists in particular would do anything more than laugh at it.What you have shown is that a ridiculous straw man is a ridiculous straw man. WOW. Seeing as we look at real world evidence, and real world science, and already use critical thinking, AND base it on reality instead of fantasy, we don't need to assume Darwin was right: we just look at the evidence that demonstrates it.Interestingly, we also use critical thinking when reviewing concepts like yours that have been invalidated.Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung Every argument that is not substantiated by evidence is by definition fantasy.Fantasy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

World English Dictionary
fantasy or phantasy n , pl -sies
1. a. imagination unrestricted by reality
...

---

Because those that are restricted by reality, ie supported by objective empirical evidence, are not fantasies by definition. Because it tells you there is objective empirical evidence that shows the formation of a new feature actually occurring in an actually living species, AND it gives you the information necessary to review that information and verify it in an objective manner.I have a rock in my hand. This is objective empirical evidence that rocks exist. I tell you that I have a rock in my hand and I provide you with the means to verify this - a picture. Thus my assertion that there is a rock in my hand is supported by objective empirical evidence, and the FACT that I have a rock in my hand supports the assertion that rocks exist.If you are still skeptical you can come visit and I can show you the rock and you can put it in your hand.Can you say that it is a fantasy that rocks exist based on this evidence? Yes NoAlternatively I tell you that I have a bloxstifl in my hand and provide you no means to determine what a bloxstifl is or any means to determine if bloxstifls exist.Can you say that it is a fantasy that bloxstifls exist based on this evidence? Yes NoEnjoy.

Hi foreveryoung, Well you are the one that keeps going back to the beginning, while apparently ignoring all the comments that have been made to guide you to a better understanding.Objective evidence is something that can be verified by someone else as actually existing.You can pick up a rock, put your hand on another rock and smash it with the first, and you will have substantial objective evidence that rocks exist.I can do the same. The existence of rocks is a fact of reality, and denial of rocks would be delusional, yes? Do you agree that denial of the existence of rocks would be a false belief or opinion? Yes NoDo you agree that denial of the existence of rocks after smashing your hand with one would be a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence? Yes No In the replies to your posts - you can go back and look at them - and if you don't understand how they refute your assertion THEN reply to those posts on that issue. So you would rather occupy 2 hours of your time here trying to learn something available in a textbook? AND waste 2 hours of our time trying to teach you fairly simple concepts? Are we supposed to be nursemaids for incomplete education? Curiously, this is precisely the level of evidence required by science and the scientific method. This level of evidence is what separates scientific theory from hypothesis and conjecture.If it is too much work for you, then perhaps you are not cut out to be a scientist or to debate scientific concepts ...This is precisely why scientific experiments need to be verifiable and precisely why scientific articles on the development of new science information are peer reviewed before they are published in scientific journals.Do you agree that an argument supported by a rock is much stronger than one that is not supported by a rock? Yes No There is little reason for you to make posts that cannot supported by that level of evidence if you want them to be considered as scientifically valid rather than fantasy. The choice of how you present your arguments is up to you. And yet you concede that rocks exist, so obviously it is possible to talk about concepts supported by this kind of evidence.The fact that this level of evidential support is required by science means that if you are going to challenge science you need to do it with the same level of support, and not by make believe fantasy. That is why people demand that condition for anyone that challenges science. Creationists just tend to be a particular subset of that category.You challenge scientific concepts by doing science, not by popular vote or under educated opinion. Yes it stops the discussion of any and all unsupported imaginary fantasies dead cold, just as it SHOULD when talking about science and scientific concepts.Concepts that cannot be supported by evidence are not scientific concepts. They are hypothetical and philosophical concepts at best, fantasy and delusion at worst It is a loss every time someone fails to understand and refuses to learn. Or because you are "too chickenshit to try and" support "the argument presented" ... ?Or are you just completely unable to support your argument, and you want us to just accept it out of some bizarre misguided sense of pity, thinking it will somehow make you a better educated person as a result?Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi intellen, Actually it is a neutral mutation that has no effect on the phenotype of the individual, they both will have blue eyes and earlobes, and selective pressure on them will be equal.Selection operates on the phenotype while reproduction acts on the genotype. The phenotype is those traits of the genotype that are expressed in the grown organism and that are subject to selection. First let's consider an individual that has a duplication mutation, and it has t1, t2_a, and t2_b ...... is this a change? Yes No... is this a neutral mutation? Yes NoAre both versions of t2 needed for the earlobe to be expressed in the phenotype? Yes NoCan t2_b mutate while t2_a is still expressed in the phenotype? Yes NoIf t2_b is not expressed in the phenotype is it a neutral mutation? Yes NoIf If t2_b is no longer the same as If t2_a is it a t3? Yes NoCan this t3 spread through the population if it is not subject to selection? Yes NoCan further mutations affect t3 without affecting the rest of the traits? Yes NoEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi Dr Adequate, Yet it is a fairly common mutation to flip sections of DNA around without altering their expression in the phenotype. In some instances this can cause trouble with genes aligning properly during reproduction, but these would be large scale flips. Yes, and any change to the genotype that is not expressed in the phenotype would be neutral, essentially by definition.Enjoy.

and this does not even begin to discuss the ramifications of the dual strand DNA with one trait version inherited from the mother and another from the father, and the matter of dominant and recessive genes and the possible mutation of recessive genes, nor the division of genes into chromosomes ....So much to cover that needs to be brought down to elementary levels the mind boggles.Enjoy.

Hi Tangle, You presented this information in Message 61:

quote:

---

This is from the wiki:

​

[My bold in last sentence]

​

Rapid evolution

​

In 1971, ten adult P. sicula specimens from the island of Pod Kopite were transported 3.5 km east to the island of Pod Mrčaru (both Croatian islands lie in the Adriatic Sea near Lastovo), where they founded a new bottlenecked population.[3][11] The two islands have similar size, elevation, microclimate, and a general absence of terrestrial predators[11] and the P. sicula expanded for decades without human interference, even outcompeting the (now extinct[3]) local Podarcis melisellensis population.[4]

​

Following the Yugoslav Wars, scientists returned to Pod Mrčaru and found that the lizards currently occupying Pod Mrčaru differ greatly from those on Pod Kopite. While mitochondrial DNA analyses have verified that P. sicula currently on Pod Mrčaru are genetically indistinguishable from the Pod Kopite source population,[3] the new Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula was described, in August 2007, as having a larger average size, shorter hind limbs, lower maximal sprint speed and altered response to simulated predatory attacks compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[11] These population changes in morphology and behavior were attributed to "relaxed predation intensity" and greater protection from vegetation on Pod Mrčaru.[11]
In 2008, further analysis revealed that the Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula have significantly different head morphology (longer, wider, and taller heads) and increased bite force compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[3] This change in head shape corresponded with a shift in diet: Pod Kopite P. sicula are primarily insectivorous, but those on Pod Mrčaru eat substantially more plant matter.[3] The changes in foraging style may have contributed to a greater population density and decreased territorial behavior of the Pod Mrčaru population.[3]

​

The most surprising[5] difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Pod Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards.[3] Additionally, the researchers discovered that nematodes were common in the guts of Pod Mrčaru lizards, but absent from Pod Kopite P. sicula, which do not have cecal valves. The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[5] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[7]

​

Italian wall lizard - Wikipedia

---

Now we note that this is objective empirical evidence for the evolution of a new trait to have occurred.We also note that this does not necessarily mean that we have a new species, but that is not a concern in this thread.The questions are:

1. how do we know that it is a new feature and did not exist in the ancestral population?
   and
2. if it is a new feature then how do we know that it evolved rather than just appeared?

I note that some of this information is included above, but perhaps I can play something of the devil's advocate here so we can hone this information into the level needed here ...Enjoy.