Summations Only

It is a problem of semantics. Can a trait be both novel and a modification of a feature found in an ancestor? Yes. Is the evolution of the human brain a novel feature amongst mammals? Yes. Is the human brain a modified version of previously exiting brains found in ancestral mammals? Yes. It is both.The difference is that creationists are looking for the evolution of "something completely different". While this could be considered a novel trait, it would seem that it would not qualify as a trait acquired through modification. Domesticated dogs have novel traits and are modified versions of their ancestors. However, creationists claim that they are not "something completely different". They are still dogs.Creationists are expecting evolution to do something that it just doesn't do, nor does it need to produce "something completely different" in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

RAZD did a great job of commenting on this. Just thought I would help clarify a bit.Let's use dogs and mutations that cause webbed feet as the example again, and assume that webbed feet are advantageous for a species that lives by the water. You have a population of dogs that lives by the coast and one that lives in the forest. You measure the rate at which the mutation occurs in each population. What are your results? You find that the webbed feet mutation occurs at the same rate in both populations.What differs is the number of offspring the individuals with webbed feet have in each population. In the population by the coast the webbed feet mutation will be passed on at a higher rate than in the population in the forest. This is true for EVERY generation. This means that every generation will see more and more individuals with the inherited webbed feet mutation as compared to the forest population.Is this any clearer?

Mutations can create new structures, such as dogs with webbed feet.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Perhaps I can help clarify what RAZD is saying.Let's say that there are two alleles in a population: allA and allB. In the current population the alleles are evenly distributed meaning that 50% of the population has allA and 50% has allB (with some having both). The environment changes. The new environment favors allA. What will we see in future generations? We will see the allelic distribution change over several generations. You will soon see allA in more individuals then you will see allB. That is the cause and effect. Every living population is competing for limited resources, so it applies to every living population. Even in static environments there is still competition between individuals for food and resources.

To put it another way, Haldane's Dilemma is no longer a Dilemma. Wiki has a nice paragraph on it:

quote:

---

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions.
Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia

---

His dilemma is irrelevant to how species evolve in the real world.

Zaius has once again shown us why creationist claims are useless. They claim that novel features must emerge through evolutionary mechanisms in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. So what would happen if we were able to travel back in time to watch every single generation from the first life to modern life, mapping each and every mutation? At every step the creationist would claim that no novel features evolved, ever.The truth of the matter is that evolution does not need to produce novel features, as defined by creationists, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. In their attempt to falsify evolution they have moved the goal posts off the field. "Novel feature" is a meaningless term as defined by creationists. "Novel feature" is a hole in the sand where they place their head.What does evolution need to produce? Heritable phenotypic change. Does it do that? Yep. Mutations produce changes in phenotype that are heritable, and the frequency of these new alleles is controlled by environmental pressures. Whether anyone names this change "novel" or not is completely irrelevant.