Summations Only

We don't need to accept that at all. If there is a set mutational response to a specific stimuli then we would expect the same stimuli to result in the same mutations. You don't need a supernatural creator to do that. Please provide evidence for this claim. Massive mountains of genomic data showing sequence divergence of orthologous genes due to synonymous mutations, not to mention different rates of change in genes and pseudogenes. The pocket mouse example is another piece of evidence since differnent mutations for dark fur occurred in different populations. If the same mutation occurred in response to the same stimuli when other options were open. The evolution of dark fur in pocket mice is the perfect example, and I laid out what I would have expected to see if guided mutations were true. I would reread that post if I were you. What evidence led you to believe that they were guided? Absolutely not. Those changes in behavior do not require changes in DNA sequence. We are talking about changes in DNA sequence. Yes, we can. Repair mechanisms fix DNA damage based on the chemistry of the DNA. It is not based on the changes in fitness that the repairs will induce. There is no way for these repair mechanisms to differentiate between a mutations that will have no effect on fitness and those that will. No, I don't agree.

Guided mutations have been excluded by the evidence. The evidence is consistent with random mutations, not guided mutations. That is not the case as I discussed before. All you would need is a protein capable of producing a set mutation when it is triggered by a set environmental cue. And in the case of the pocket mouse, it resulted in random mutations that produced a novel and beneficial trait.

Why should we pay attention to it? What research and evidence do you have? Those are the questions you need to answer in a new thread.Scientists are not interested in what you can imagine. Scientists are interested in how you can bring evidence to bear on a question of interest. Since you have not brought this evidence to bear there is simply nothing to ignore. Science is not "consider the fantasies of a crackpot". It is quite different from that.

An example of a random mutation leading to a novel and beneficial adaptation is a very strong case for evolution. Why wouldn't it be? However, the ancestral strain could not transport citrate in high oxygen environments, and now it can. This novel feature was produced by a random mutation and was selected for. This is evolution. The species concept doesn't work well with bacteria to begin with, so I really don't see how that matters. What was observed was the evolution of a novel feature which is the topic of this thread.Also, how can you have a heterozygote in a haploid organism? Compare the human and chimp genomes. The differences between those two genomes should supply many examples of mutations that led to divergent species.

It would seem to me that you should have a problem with every single theory in science since all of them incorporate time as a process. Why does milk spoil? Over time, the number of microorganisms increases. Over time, these microorganisms metabolize the nutrients in the milk. According to you, we should abandon the germ theory of milk spoilage because it requires time. What is wrong with the mechanisms we already have? Each human is born with 50 to 100 mutations plus a few indels. Are you saying that we are not allowed to state that in 100 generations that you will have an accumulation of 5,000 to 10,000 mutations and 100 times the number of indels as that found in a single generation? Why would that be?It would seem to me that you need to invent new physics and chemistry in order to keep mutations from accumulating from generation to generation.

There are many different species of bacteria with that morphology. You can have speciation and still keep the same morphology. Given the fact that species that are around today are viable it would seem that this barrier has not been crossed. This barrier you speak of is not a barrier for producing the biodiversity we see today from a single ancestral population. Doesn't change the fact that mutations lead to novel phenotypes. The differences in HOX gene sequence between species shows that you are wrong. They can change, and they are responsible for differences in morphology. You are arguing against reality on this one. Yes there is. It is called mutation.

However, E. coli were not able to transport citrate in aerobic conditions. After many generations, they were able to transport citrate in aerobic conditions, a phenotype that they previously did not have. Therefore, it is a novel trait by definition. Also, this trait came about through random mutations and was then selected for. So this is an example of a novel trait coming about through random mutation and selection. E. coli do not have recessive genes. The new phenotype came about through mutations. Aerobic transport of citrate did not occur previous to the mutations. There was nothing silent about it. The transporter was changed through mutation, and those mutations led to a new and novel phenotype.

We are claiming that aerobic citrate transport is a novel feature that came about through random mutation and selection. Perhaps you could try to answer that question? I looked up a random human HOX gene which was Homo sapiens homeobox A1 (HOXA1) found here:Homo sapiens homeobox A1 (HOXA1), RefSeqGene on chromosome 7 - Nucleotide - NCBIIf you click on the BLAST search on the right it will do a similarity search. You will find that human HOXA1 differs from both chimp and orangutan HOXA1 at several sites. HOX genes are different between species. Yes, they are. Mutations produce gene sequence that is not found in the ancestor. That is the very definition of mutation.

We are not asking if it is a fantasy or not. We are asking if it would be novel or not.

What does science not understand about mutations? Whether a feature is novel has nothing to do with evolution. It is only a question of comparing descendants to ancestors. Once novel features are discovered, then we ask the question of how they could evolve. So far, you refuse to even participate in the first step, the identification of novel features. What you are pushing is a completely semantic argument that you use to deny the existence of novel features. That isn't an honest way to approach a discussion, which is why Tangle stated "So your contribution to this entire thread has been a sham". I think he is dead on.

Yes, it is. The ancestors did not have aerobic citrate transport. Now they do. That is a novel trait by definition. First it was a gene that did not exist beforehand. Second, the expression of the gene was a result of mutation, more specifically a DNA recombination event:"It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed, he said. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed."
http://news.msu.edu/.../evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3So it would appear that novel features can evolve through DNA recombination events that result in brand new genes with brand new expression patterns. This result could only come about through mutation. That adaptation occurred through mutation followed by selection, otherwise known as evolution. Prior to the mutations, it did not have this trait so how could it be silent? The point is that HOX genes can differ without being detrimental which is what you were arguing against originally. You like to change your argument midstream, don't you?I will also note that common descent through evolutionary mechanisms is testable by testing for a nested hierarchy. I guess you are unaware that evolution produces differences in lineages? It is strange that you are unaware of this in a thread that is discussing that very topic.

But the duplicate did not exist, therefore it is novel sequence. And yet here we have just such a sequence occuring through random mutations. It is a series of DNA sequence changes that result in a trait that the bacteria did not have before these changes occurred.

That was a feature it did not have before which makes this feature novel.To use an analogy, you would not call the evolution of lungs novel. Why? Fish could already utilize oxygen in an aquatic environment. Fish evolving legs? Nope, not novel. Fish already had limbs and had locomotion in an aquatic environment. Using your definition of novel, if we started with a very simple replicator and watched life evolve into what we see today you would not define a single one of those evolved features novel. No novel features needed to evolve anywhere in the history of life in order to get the biodiversity we see today, according to your definition of novel. What more is needed in order to produce novel features? The differences between any two species is due to SNP's, indels, and recombination events. But it does have a relevant mutations in the promoter which lead to a feature that was not present in the bacteria before the mutations occurred.Why can't novel features evolve through changes in promoter sequences? There is an entire field of biology called Evolutionary Developmental Biology that argues that DNA regulation is a major factor in evolving novel features. Then novel features evolve by evolving new keys. What is wrong with that? You have never heard of neutral drift? Evidence please. Are you really unaware that deletions occur regularly? Also, there are some species out there with very massive genomes. For example, a species of amoeba has a 670 billion base genome, 100 times larger than our own.I would also be curious to see the energy budget used to produce DNA in multicellular organisms. I'm not sure, but I think it would be pretty miniscule compared to muscle contractions and other processes. I would also suspect that speed of replication is a stronger selective force in bacteria than energy budgets for genome size.

In the case of the E. coli, you get aerobic citrate utilization which it did not have before. If that is not new information, then what is? A rearrangement is a new arrangement, and since it didn't exist before it would also be novel. The sequence needed to utilize citrate in aerobic conditions did NOT exist before, otherwise the bacteria would have utilized citrate in aerobic conditions. They didn't. It took a new arrangement of nucleotides to get a new phenotype. New functionality is new information.

Using your definitions, all you need is adaptation in order to produce new species. Every single DNA difference between any two species is just a modification of what was already there. The evolution of terrestrial tetrapods? The fish already had swim bladders and fins. These were just adapted to moving about on land and breathing air. According to you, this isn't evolution. This is adaptation. In fact, using your definition of evolution we do not even need evolution to produce the biodiversity we see today from a simple replicator. All we need is adaptation.What this really boils down to is semantics. What we call evolution you call adaptation. A rose by any other name . . . What you describe as adaptation is exactly what we describe as evolution. Evolution is descent with modification. You are claiming that adaption is descent with modification. They are the same.