The Origin of Novelty

I think Bolder-dash is looking more for structural novelties (though it's ultimately up to him). He understands that many structures have predecessors, such as legs evolved from fins, but if at one time you had a creature whose body had nothing where his distant descendants have fins, how did fins originate?

Could you not let Boulder-dash be wrong on his own account? He hardly seems to need any help.

Hi Dr A,As moderator I don't wish to get into any extended dialogs, or any dialogs at all for that matter, but if you have something to say that you think would bring more clarity to the discussion then if you could express yourself less cryptically it would be appreciated.

It would appear to me that Bolderdash wants to see these changes on such a fine scale that they will cease to be novel structures as they will be slight modifications of what is already there (just as your fins to legs example demonstrates).

Hi, Bluegenes. I must have been thinking of the mussel species pictured in this blog post.And, intuitively, the idea of feedback selection generating a fine-tuned system makes a lot of sense in general terms. I mean, you'd imagine that a mussel phenotype with some type of pigmentation on it would first emerge, and that the pigmentation could be modified over time with iterative applications of natural selection.But, the idea that the very first "spots" on the lure were almost certainly random with respect to the functionality of the lure, yet still improved fitness enough to keep the phenotype around, is hard to visualize intuitively.Evolution has done weirder things than that, so I don't really doubt that it could do this too, but I have to admit that it's not that easy for me to wrap my brain around.Edited by Blue Jay, : I saluted myself.

Well, they're not nothing, but gill skeletons with gill rays might be a plausible answer, because those of primitive fish share the same "genetic toolkit" that controls their developmental pathways with fins and our own limbs. Looking for something developing from literally "nothing" might take you right back to the OOL, as genes seem to descend from other genes.So, how did gill skeletons originate? Presumably, to find out, we'd have to see what those genes are used for in more primitive vertebrates, and then possibly invertebrates. I have a hunch that they could have formed basic limbs back before the gills and fins. If so, our legs may represent a return to a very early function of the genetic architecture involved. If that sounds strange, think of creatures like penguins, whose ancestors hit the limb stage with ours (they were ours!), and have gone through wings to flippers (sort of fins) since.

Perhaps a better example would be the evolution of the mammalian middle ear where bones change function in a stepwise manner.Reptiles have one middle ear bone and three lower jaw bones. Mammals have three middle ear bones and one lower jaw bone. So what happened? When mammals evolved from reptiles two of those jaw bones became middle ear bones (in an irreducibly complex system, nonetheless). There was even an intermediate step where there was a double hinged jaw joint.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

How am I being cryptic? What I am saying is that it is an intrusion on this thread for you to swoop in in your role as moderator and say: "Here is the question that B-d would be asking if he was more sensible and coherent, so people responding to him should answer that instead."No, we should answer what he asked and respond to what he actually posted. Your powers as moderator are extensive, but they don't extend to getting us to ignore what a creationist buffoon is actually asking and respond instead to what he might be saying if he was smarter. Such answers would in fact be off-topic.

I think this is a good example of the disconnect between scientists and the general public. How a scientist views a problem is quite different from how you may view that same problem. I can understand why people think scientists are jumping the gun when there are still so many basic structures that do not have a well understood evolutionary history. Hopefully I can explain where scientists are coming from.Scientists have to be pragmatists and use the evidence they have in front of them. This set of evidence is always going to be imperfect, and there may be evolutionary pathways that may never be known, ever. However, theories are meant to be an explanatory framework for the facts we DO have, and in that sense the theory works amazingly well. Time and again we see a nested hierarchy. We see lineage specific adapations. We see the fingerprints of evolution wherever we look in biology. Time and again the evidence fits what the theory of evolution predicts it should be. The theory explains what we know in biology. That is why it is accepted by over 99.9% of degreed biologists worldwide. Perhaps you can tell us why you think that mutations and selection are incapable of producing these changes, or why you think the case has not been made.If we were to compare chimps and humans, would you agree that the reason we look different from chimps is that the DNA sequence of our genome is different? If so, can you point to any those differences that the observed and known processes of mutation could not produce? Or we can say, "I don't know". Some things will always be a mystery unless we invent time travel. That is exactly what Lenski observed in his E. coli experiment:E. coli long-term evolution experiment - WikipediaThey found that neutral mutations in earlier generations made possible beneficial mutations in the future. This very process has been observed in the lab. Mutations are still occuring. You were born with 50 to 100 mutations not found in either of your parents, and your children will have about the same number of mutations specific to them along with half of the mutations specific to you. This process never stops.Also, evolution doesn't start from scratch. It starts with already existing species and modifies already existing genomes.

I think Percy's just trying to protect BD a little, Dr A.There's going to be one helluva dogpile on this as it's the hoariest, oldest, crappies argument since Darwin first mentioned it. It's going to be a car crash unless controlled a little. Well, it's going t o be a car crash anyway - it's just a question of what speed it happens at.

Well, sure, fine. I've said the same thing myself. In effect: "Lay off the poor little retarded creationist, 'cos he's a poor little retarded creationist". We have to give them a little more latitude than we'd give to an intelligent person, or we'd run out of people to debate with.But surely this does not extend to us making up their arguments for them 'cos the poor little dumb little things need our help? We can patronize them, sure, but to that extent?

Oh, I dunno. Personally I'd rather hear your one-liners than sit through a 2 week pile of pre-ordaned, pre-rehearsed, multiply repeated bollocks, but it ain't my forum.

In conformance with the Moderator Guidelines, this is written warning that your next violation of the Forum Guidelines in this thread will result in a suspension.I wouldn't characterize my efforts in the same way as Tangle, though I grant it is consistent with my actions. I feel I am trying to frame the discussion in the most challenging way possible for evolutionists so that we don't get bogged down again in arguments about whether, for an example from previous discussions, nylon digestion is novel or not.

Do please explain how I have violated the Forum Guidelines, so that I can avoid doing it again. Thank you. In the meantime, I would like to renew my request that you should adhere to guideline 2. As a moderator on these forums, and indeed the sole administrator, you should have no problem in starting your own thread about any topic you choose. Indeed, I urge you to do so.

Lets start with skin and sunlight: when you are out in sunlight can you tell which skin cells "see" sunlight and which don't?Using the sensation of sunlight can you turn to face where the sun is?Can a blind person tell where the sun is?Enjoy.