Summations Only

Hi Zi Ko,People really do want to discuss guided evolution with you, but you keep bringing it up in existing threads on other topics. If you propose a topic on guided evolution over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as I can.--Percy

Hi Zi Ko,People really do want to discuss guided evolution with you, but you keep bringing it up in existing threads on other topics. If you propose a topic on guided evolution over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as I can.--Percy

You need some remedial work on your understanding of the definition of evolution. Evolution produces adaptations through a process of descent with modification and natural selection. An experiment that produces adaptations cannot have "nothing to do with evolution." It wasn't intended as an example of speciation, and drawing dividing lines between species of bacteria is fraught with difficulty anyway.Your message reads as if you forgot your point before your reached it. Were you trying to say that the ability to consume citrate was already present in the bacteria and that therefore further development of the trait wasn't an example of novelty? The actual novelty was the ability to absorb citrate in the presence of oxygen, an ability the E. coli did not previously possess.Or are we going to get into a debate about how novel something has to be before it qualifies?--Percy

Evolution is descent with modification and natural selection. Evolution is not defined as speciation. The process of adaptation that you said was not evolution *is* absolutely evolution because it involves descent with modification and natural selection. Those E. coli best able to digest citrate and most likely to survive have progeny, who then repeat the process. If you restrict yourself to morphology and ignore the adaptation to digesting citrate then yes, under the microscope the new E. coli will look pretty much the same. Why do you wish to ignore the adaptation that was produced through a process of descent with modification and natural selection and that you yourself described? You do realize, I hope, that one will thrive on a citrate substrate and the other will die. That *is* quite a significant difference.Let me emphasize again that no one's making any claims that this is an example of speciation. The claim is that this is an example of evolution producing adaptation. Even you described it as mutations and selection producing adaptation. And what might it be that imposes that limit? And what form might that barrier take? Yes, of course this is true. But if G produces greater adaptation than A, then those organisms with G will be favored and gradually dominate the population. Of course "some types of deleterious mutations are fatal to an organism." It would be very safe to go way beyond that and say that many types of deleterious mutations are fatal to an organism. But can you describe for us and reference the research demonstrating that Hox gene mutations can play no role in speciation? Since the observation is incorrect, obviously it was appropriate for evolutionists to ignore it. This sentence appears nowhere on the Internet except here. Who are you quoting?Gene duplication followed by mutations in both copies of the gene produces entirely new genes. The genomes of organisms are filled with examples of this.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Do you have any evidence to separate this flight of your imagination from fantasy?Please realize that claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If all you provide is your opinion and nothing else then you've given us nothing. If I were to try to convince someone else of your point of view and they asked me why I believe this, all I could say is that Zaius thinks so. You're making an invalid comparison, for more than one reason. First, humans can't really be compared very effectively with bacteria, but more importantly, gaining the ability to digest citrate is pretty significant, while humans already had the ability to digest meat 630,000 years ago (otherwise they wasted a heck of a lot of time making spears and arrows).Regarding the entire array of changes between the chimp/human common ancestor and us, some were likely as complex as the citrate-digesting change in bacteria, but many changes were rather minor.Also realize that the amount of change in DNA can be very tiny but still have a very significant impact on the organism. As an analogy, a small hole punched in your car's fender will have a negligible effect on performance, but a small hole punched in the radiator, well... To use an analogy again, to believe this you would have to think that since the morphological difference between the 4 and 8 cylinder versions of the same car model is nil that it makes no difference which one you drive in a race. The citrate-digesting ability is very significant. It's an example of the kind of novelty that is the topic of this thread. Pretending it's of no consequence is a kind of obvious fault in your argument. I think you must have misinterpreted what CS wrote. To rephrase and add a little more info, he said that though it might be argued that a copied segment of DNA isn't really new information, it provided a slate upon which to modify the copied information, and these modifications represent new information that was responsible for the new ability. You really think knowledge is only gained through speculation or revelation? You might want to reconsider this position. Just using yourself as an example, think back through your life and identify how many things you know that you didn't learn by observation. You either saw it or heard it or felt it or smelt it or tasted it in order to add it to your store of knowledge, but your didn't speculate it and revelate it.--Percy

My friend Zaius, But CS was simply using human evolution to highlight your mistaken reliance upon morphology for species identification. You went off in a completely different direction with claims about how much humans could change based upon E. coli information. It made no sense, as Malcolm also explained. And as I and several others stated before, the ability to digest citrate in the presence of oxygen is the novelty, and Malcolm described why this was no small matter genetically.You're simply trimming back the details to where there's no difference. "Oh, you can show E. coli evolving the ability to digest citrate in the presence of oxygen? But that's not novelty, the ability to digest citrate was already there."Or, "Oh, you can show some of the genetic changes that might have led to a fin evolving into a leg? But that's not novelty, they're still both limbs."Eventually you'll reach the point where you'll be saying, "Oh, you can show how an ancient land animal evolved into a whale? But that's not novelty, they're still both mammals."Your strategy of denying that any demonstrated novelty isn't really novel is kind of embarrassingly obvious, my friend. Ah, I see. So when you read a biology paper, that's revelation to you. My good friend, could you perhaps use words in the same way everyone else in this thread is using them?CS and I both explained one way in which new information is created in the genome, hopefully this "revelation" has removed your confusion.--Percy

Zaius my friend,My friend, you're misinterpreting me, my good friend. Those weren't claims, my excellent friend, of what we've found, but of how you'd respond if they *were* found, my exquisite friend. Yes, we know you think that, my splendid friend. "Citrate isn't novelty," you again claim, my admirable friend. And I repeat, this time without examples that will confuse you, my fine friend, that in response to evidence of evolution producing novelty you'll just argue it isn't really novel, my superb friend.--Percy

Zaius,Gee, I'm not your friend anymore? Did the belittling way in which you were employing the term finally dawn on you?You're ignoring the question. Your definition of novelty appears to depend upon whether or not it was produced by evolution, and not on the actual definition of novelty. If that's to be your strategy then there will never be any novelty for you to discuss.Why don't you just pretend to yourself, for the sake of discussion, that evolving the ability to digest citrate in the presence of oxygen is novel. It's certainly complex and non-trivial.--Percy

Hi Zaius,You are ignoring the point. Again, to you whether or not an adaptation is novel depends upon whether evolution was involved. That's why you were earlier making the error of claiming that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation.Let me state your position more plainly and in the language you were using earlier: If an adaptation involves evolution then it can't be novel.In other words, you've defined evolution and novelty as mutually exclusive. You're assuming the consequent (i.e., you're treating as a fundamental premise that which you are trying to prove).There's no point in discussing the production of novelty through evolution with you if you're simply going to dismiss any example as "not novel."So before we come up with yet another example I think you need to provide your criteria for novelty, otherwise coming up with more examples is pointless because you'll just dismiss them as "not novel" for arbitrary reasons.--Percy

Zaius,You're not being very helpful. You offer two definitions instead of one, and you don't explain how your definitions lead to the conclusion that the ability to digest citrate in the presence of oxygen is not novel while a fin becoming a leg is. The citrate example that involves the difference between life and death for an E. coli with the misfortune to be involved in the experiment certainly seems new, original and striking to everyone here but you.--Percy

Tangle pointed out that this new criteria has nothing to do with novelty, so you haven't answered the question about how you're defining novelty.And CS pointed out that citrate digesting bacteria already fulfill your new criteria, so if you really believe this new criteria defines novelty then you have in effect just conceded that citrate digestion is an example of novelty.I assume that wasn't your intention, so your only path out of this quandary is to introduce yet more criteria. What is it to be this time? That it can't happen in a lab? That it can't be single-celled organisms?This thread is about how evolution produces novelty. Naturally some traits are more novel than others. There must inevitably be a spectrum from slight to extreme novelty, but there will always be novelty. Changing environments impose demands for change in organisms, and random mutations guarantee that many new traits offered up to natural selection will be novel.Again, this thread is about how evolution produces novelty. Evolution produces change one little mutation at a time, and citrate digestion is a prime example of how this process of gradual change produces novelty. Whether or not citrate digestion is novel, the process that produced citrate digestion is the same one that produces novelty. Whatever features you eventually decide to concede are novel, they are produced in the same way as citrate digestion, one little step at a time.By the way, I chanced across a mention in the Wikipedia article on citrate-digesting bacteria that these E. coli are larger and more rounded, so there *is* a morphological difference. This is as irrelevant as it was when you first raised it as an issue, but I just thought I'd mention that yet another of your objections has disappeared. Perhaps these morphological differences are in your mind insufficient to qualify as real differences, but in that case it would just be a further demonstration of your constant recourse to inventing criteria as you go along.--Percy

Hi Zaius,You're failing to engage what anyone is telling you, e.g.: No one else thinks so, so why are you ignoring their requests for clarification? Everyone else is telling that the novelty is the ability to do this is the presence of oxygen, so why are you ignoring this? Why don't you explain to us how transportation in the absence of horses was not an innovation since stuff was already being transported anyway? Evolution frequently works by taken advantage of what is already there. If you disallow these types of innovations then indeed novel differences will never emerge in experiments that can actually be performed. All you're doing now is insisting on a definition of novelty so large and significant that it would require several human lifetimes even using rapidly reproducing bacterial species.This doesn't change the facts of how novel features evolve, which is one little evolutionary step at a time. That thirty some thousand generations of the Lenski experiment produced insufficient novelty for your criteria doesn't change the fact that it is a perfect illustration of how evolution produces novelty, for certainly if allowed to continue for a number of human generations the novelty would be so considerable as to be acceptable as novelty to anyone.Anyway, the important point is that you still haven't provided a definition of novelty that we can use. How would we use your definition of novelty to decide whether a fin evolving into a leg is sufficiently innovative?--Percy

Now you're repeating earlier mistakes. Is that to be your strategy, just cycling through your errors until the thread ends.Again, adaptation is what evolution does. Is it perhaps speciation that you're thinking of and not evolution?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typos.

The question isn't whether fins evolving into legs is a fantasy. The question is how you're defining novel. You need to provide a definition of novel that is acceptable to you so that we can focus on novelty that you actually accept as novelty, and that allows we people that you're discussing with to identify features that are *not* novel to you (citrate digestion in the presence of oxygen) versus features that *are* novel to you (and which evidently doesn't include fins evolving into legs).If in your mind nothing could ever be novel then there's really no point in you're contributing to a thread on novelty, so if you're actually participating in this thread in good faith then could you maybe provide a few examples of innovations you would consider novel?--Percy

The truth is that you're still stonewalling about providing a definition. You're being called out on it pretty regularly, I can't see how you could possibly believe you're fooling anyone. You're inventing your arbitrary criteria for novelty as you go along. If you're not interested in discussing how novelty evolves, if you're not even willing to discuss a definition of novelty, then perhaps you should find something else to do.--Percy