Summations Only

Hi Tangle,Hopefully we can keep this one focused on the development of novel features. In a sense this is true, just because there are only 4 letters used in DNA and sequences are so long, that the likelihood of a specific sequence already existing is high.It is also difficult to point out where a specific mutation makes a new combination in a particular location.The creationist\idologist argument, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores all the other mutations that don't result in new traits or beneficial results and all the individuals in the population that are not "gifted" with the mutation.The counter argument to the creationist\idologist supergenome claim is that not all the population select the new gene to be generated, so this shows that the mutation is not generated or designed mutation but a random one. Selection operates on the phenotype rather than the genotype, and while the phenotype is the expression of the genotype not all of the genotype is expressed in any specific individual.For this thread I would suggest that the cause (random or designed) of a mutation is not an issue for discussion, rather that we start with accepting that a different mutation exists in the population that is expressed in the phenotype. Personally I think we need to focus on the phenotype and selection forces, and that we need to look for further development that what has been discussed so far, with the dogs and with the lizards.These have initiated a potential for new traits, but perhaps we need to discuss speciation (phyletic and divergent), and possibly even the formation of genus or family level diversity.Enjoy.

Hi again Tangle,catching up here ... You lasted 48 hours talking about biological facts? wow. As is the word "adaptation" (ie microevolution as an accepted part of evolution, due to force of evidence ... but call it a different word to hide the fact). The bugbear for creationists is macroevolution, but not biological macroevolution per se, but the reptile becoming mammal macroevolution type changes. Yes it is a mutation, just a rather frequent type that disrupts developmental processes, hence it occurs in many species.My original intent was to start with web footed dogs and short legged dogs, then segue into otters as fellow carnivores with high usage of webbed feet and short legs, then to seals.When does a new trait become undeniably novel?The problem here of course is that this uses "inference" to go from one species to the next, so maybe what we need is to look into the ancestors of these species to see where they came from (as in the use of horses on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread... which creationists shy away from ... ).Perhaps we need to look at horses (or something similarly well evidenced in the fossil record) and then show that the stages from one to the next are simple adaptive steps such as seen in living species? This is the problem - creationists are comfortable with misinformation if it suits their beliefs. We've seen many here that are like Vanessa's lady at the conference that prefers her belief over truth.You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.Enjoy.

Hi Tangle, Wounded King, Taq, Zaius, et al, Curiously, I would say that it is a mutation of the existing alleles -- that is how alleles are modified (they don't rearrange themselves eh?).And I would say that the modification spread through the populations because of selection of a trait that was beneficial for the survival of the individuals with the trait.ie -- standard evolution: The question is how do novel features evolve. Here we see a new trait, and we see the creationist pass it off as "adaptation" (eg microevolution) and not different enough ("a dog is still a dog").What will it take?Enjoy.

Hi Tangle, Especially in debates like this where some people have trouble comprehending the basic concepts (for whatever reason of many possibles). Is also part of sexual selection and thus of natural selection, which can lead to confusions as well. Better to talk about allelic recombination with errors and other random mutations as the source/s.One of the problems here is the creationist "clutching at straws" assertion that the particular gene sequence comes from "storage" somewhere else on the genome (ie - zaius137's comment about whether or not the whole genome was sequenced).This of course ignores the fact that mutations are random and not all mice got the mutations.Enjoy.

Hi Jar It seems so simple, but it seems some people can't grasp it ... perhaps because it is so simple.That's one reason for this graphic: It just keeps going around and around ... and whenever you look, evolution is found ... The only way out of the feedback loop is when all the offspring die before reproduction -- ie extinction happens.Enjoy.

Hi Taq, nice post.Loved the "peppered moth" style photos ... Another point to the whole issue is that a novel trait may be deleterious in the "home" ecology, but allow the individual to prosper in a neighboring ecology ... as here with the different colored rocks. The selection of traits will be different in different ecologies where the opportunities and challenges are different.Enjoy.

Hi zaius137 No.Not one color change sits there waiting for the gene mutation to go running out onto the stage of life. There is no cause or deterministic aspect.Mutation happens.
Because of mutation A color change happens.IF color change is NOT deleterious to the individual with it,
THEN the color change will propagate in the population.IF color change IS deleterious to the individual with it,
THEN the color change will disappear in the population.IF the color change allows individual with it to populate a neighboring ecology
THEN it allows more opportunities for the individuals with the color change.It does not matter what the color change actually is, just that

1. that it is different
2. that it is not deleterious

This adds variation to the gene pool of the breeding population and that gives it more opportunities to take advantage of that did not exist before, as well as more challenges.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : db

Hi again zaius137 Actually that should be either two thumbs up for natural selection and mutation OR just two thumbs up for (micro)evolution: All evolution occurs within breeding populations. If you want to discuss macroevolution we can take this to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?I haven't had a creationist define what amount of change is necessary. At least not in any usable way.Enjoy.

Hi zaius137 Correct. Wrong.It spreads in the population if it is not deleterious, which means that there is insufficient negative selection to harm the carrier.Natural selection is the individuals (with whatever mutations they have) surviving to breed better than others (those without the mutations).A mutation becomes fixed in a breeding population when it spreads to the point where it is common in the population. Nope, all I need to do is watch it happen. If someone's hypothesis says X can't happen and I see X happen,k then I know that the hypothesis is false and invalid. There is just so much wrong with that assertion that I don't know where to start.The changes are preserved or not preserved via natural selection.The "sweeps of phenotypic variation" are new mutations in the breeding population that also then undergo natural selection.The changes are "exposed" in the carriers via their ability to survive and breed - ie natural selection.It isn't a "selective pressure" it is a selection pressure: their ability to survive and breed compared to others. That is because the process IS very simple. Curiously I see no problem at all. You can observe the process occurring in every population of every species in every generation. ... to your unwilling satisfaction.Again, you ability to see, or not see, that mutation provides variation within the breeding population, and that selection filters for the parents of the next generation, are not critical to whether or not the process occurs.Enjoy.

Hi zaius137 Corrected. Yes, do you?Do you understand that math cannot alter or affect reality in any way? That if there is a conflict between math and reality that reality wins every time?Math is a model, a hypothetical representation, and when falsified needs to be altered, fixed, or forgotten.Curiously, I note that ...Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia... does not mention Haldane nor any problem with fixation occurring. In fact there is an equation there ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : < & > instead of [ & ]

Hi zi ko Isn't this just selection? The "information flow from environment to genome" is where the individuals survive to breed, yes?Change the ecological environment and different individuals survive to breed because there is different "information flow from environment to genome" -- and this can lead to different genomes in different populations, novel traits, and eventually to speciation, yes?Thus the directed part of the evolution would have to be in manipulation of the ecological environment, yes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi Percy,The topic is development of novel features. We start with (a) a parent population and end up with (b) a daughter population with novel features. The question is how we get from (a) to (b):

• directed\guided evolution (zi ko) or
• natural\unguided evolution (taq)

So far I see it as being on topic.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : list

Hi Percy, So let's ask: IF we accept that "directed\guided evolution (zi ko)" occurs, THEN how does that produce novel features? ie what's the next step in his thesis to increased diversity of species.Enjoy

Hi PercyNot have participated on threads with him before I will leave you to decide then.Enjoy

Hi zi ko Great, so now we can move on in this thread to the formation of those novel traits, and you can participate in that discussion, or not, as you wish. Enjoy.