The Origin of Novelty

Taq,You can't just quote talkorigins, and say that these shows we have lots of evidence for the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In what way does any of the evidence we have point towards a random path of development, and away from a teleological path? None of the evidence you have does that.So when you say your theory works to explain things, in what way does it work as an explanation? We don't see meandering, we see precision. So if we are not sure how life developed and we have to to choose between a path which has direction, and one which doesn't, everything we see looks much more like a path that shows direction.

Taq,It is not very imaginative to simply say that just because an earbone was once part of the jaw, that this can rationalize how a complete system was built, through unplanned mistakes.An ear needs much more than just a bone. It needs a hole in the head for one. No actually it needs two holes in the head, (symmetrically placed, with fluid inside that works as part of a balancing system, which can detect fractions of an inch of movements and automatically adjust the entire bodies muscle system, to compensate for every movement and balance it out so that we can walk on a tiny wire, juggle bowling pins, all the while listening and discerning the exact frequencies of a symphony orchestra) -holes that weren't there before.Have you seen other mutations for holes in ones head, that could lead to some useful advantage for survival in the future? Why have the holes stopped?You seem to have a tremendous ability to suspend any level of skepticism.

So you STILL can't describe a process that stops the progression of adaptive features by the process of mutation and Natural Selection. Why can't you man-up and just admit it.Look it's incredibly simple really. One wonders why it took someone like Darwin so long to figure it (I suppose religion's grip had a lot to do with it).1. Chemistry is stochastic. This means it doesn't perform chemical reactions exactly the same every time - that's just the nature of the beast as far as chemistry goes - it is not perfectly reproducible - even in laboratory conditions.
2. This means that any processes that rely of replication of chemical processes by necessity cannot be perfect (the phrase is "its fidelity is high but not perfect").
3. This means that mutations in genetic coding are utterly inevitable.
4. Mutations mean that individuals carry differences in phenotypic traits within a population.
5. Differences in phenotypic traits are acted upon by the environment (this is Natural Selection).
6. Those phenotypes that are best suited to that environment will survive and breed and pass on traits - those that aren't suited won't. This over time gives rise to change in populations and emergence of new species.This 6 stage process is UTTERLY INEVITABLE as soon as you start with a replication process that is dependant upon stochastic chemistry. There is simply no way out of it. It's like a line of falling dominoes - once the first one goes the rest follow.Please provide a mechanism to prevent the stages above happening - provide the lynch-pin that stops the dominoes falling. This is now the third time of asking.Why do you suppose that the vast majority of the world’s cleverest scientists see the fundamental truths of evolution, whereas the scientifically illiterate make up the group that prefer to hang on to ancient tribal myths? Didn't you study at school?

Drosphillia,First off, why don't you man up and go blow yourself.Secondly, I have to describe a process that stops the progression of adaptive features? You mean, you can just come up with any baloney you want, and now I have to show you why it can't happen? Is that the same as you explaining why little magic leprechauns couldn't come out at night and repaint the sky whenever your eyes are closed? Can you explain a process of why this can't happen? Maybe we just haven't figured out the small details yet.Saying that chemistry is stochastic leads to the inevitability of sophisticated useful functions coming into being? The only obvious answer to that trash is, not it doesn't you idiot.Can you describe a mechanism which stops the development of directed life? That makes as much sense as the crap you are saying.

Your home-schooling?

Last resort of the intellectually challenged - insult your debater! But you haven't demonstrated that leprechauns exist so that's a non-starter before you begin. Whereas, adaptive features abound everywhere, mutations are trivially demonstrated, phylogenic comparisons exist across all phyla, classes, orders, families and genera. In other words - all the key elements of the evolution theory exist IN THE REAL WORLD not some fantasy shit you've thought up in your head (like religion for example....not a fucking tiny piece of real evidence for any of that shit). Of course if you had studied at college you would know it is not trash. You can actually do chemistry tests in a lab to demonstrate stochastic processes! Yes - how about the total absence of any evidence of directed life in the first place? Do you want to get started on the engineering stupidity evident in life on earth - it is clearly a suboptimal, at times dangerous (think choking option on a shared windpipe and oesophagus) jury-rigged bio-system that would be expected if evolution was at play (having to go with what has gone before and taking the best that mutations and NS add onto the mix). Whereas if God has designed life on earth he should have his engineering licence revoked for incompetence. That alone is evidence that 'directed life' hasn't happened (or else your God isn't up to human engineering standards).Next!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Hi, Bolder-dash. It's certainly hypothetically possible for such an argument to be compelling. But, I contest your implicit claim that you've been making such an argument. All you've done is say that we don't know some specific fact, and that our theory must therefore be wrong.I've laid out some ways in which our theory might very well explain those facts. But, since we don't have access to the information that would be necessary to test those ideas, what exactly do you expect me to do? Lie and claim that I have an answer, when I don't?It would certainly be convenient for your argument if I did lie, because that would demonstrate that I'm dishonest, just as you're trying to make everybody think.But, my hope is that anybody reading this debate will see that I am unwilling to lie, even when it favors my position in the debate, and will realize that this does not square with your outrageous caricature of "my side."----- I don't know what to tell you. I don't know these blind, dishonest people who are trying control the debate, and I'm not even sure I believe your premise that they exist. But, even if they do exist, where do you get off holding me accountable for their opinions and their actions? I haven't tried to debate you by constantly talking about the ethics or personal views of Dembski or Behe or Ham, but have tailored my arguments and my debate tactics specifically to you and the points you raise. I would appreciate it if you returned the favor.----- You and I have already failed to reach an agreement on whether or not there were beards in a series of photographs of chimpanzees. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me much that we cannot agree on the information contained in something as complex as the fossil record. Can you describe to me what it is in the fossil record that "points more toward a directed process" than toward a "meandering process"?----- We both at least seem to agree on one thing: that faith is meaningless.

Yea but we know that small people exist. And we also know that paint exists, and that sometimes you close your eyes. So all of the key elements you need for leprechauns painting the sky exist in the real world. That is just as effective of an argument for saying that just because there are mutations we know of (it just so happens that so far the only ones we know of pretty much destroy life, but never mind that) that it is inevitable that they will create something good. This seems to be a recurring problem for you. You can't see the difference between saying stochastic processes exist and saying that stochastic process would inevitably lead to a world of useful functions. To you it is saying the same thing. Maybe you can only concentrate long enough to read parts of phrases. So don't take offense if I don't respond to a lot of your posts, because just to be honest, I don't find you to be very intelligent when you can't see the difference. Plus, you seem to have some kind of hang-ups or scars about religion which have nothing to do with me-so since I am not a psycho-therapist its just not that fruitful.

I've actually heard this from creationists. Not the rank-and-file know-nothings like balderdash, but the top-level professionals. It was either Henry Morris in writing or Duane Gish on the radio. He actually said, that creationists' answers are better than "evolutionists'", because "evolutionists" claim to have all the answers that they don't, while creationists don't have the answers and they don't. No shit!Now, of course their "'evolutionists' claim to have all the answers" is a blatant creationist lie, just like balderdash's misrepresentations of what we say and think. But to claim that they, with no answers about the universe, have better answers than science does just because science has a very good understanding of the observable universe and yet doesn't have every single detailed answer. That is just plain ludicrous.BTW, balderdash is employing a very common fundamentalist proselytizing trick here. He demands that we provide an extremely detailed description of every single step of development and, when we cannot (Who could? Certainly not him!) then he attacks our position as being completely untenable. When that is deployed against a mark (the targeted victim of a confidence swindle) on the street, the intent is to unnerve him, to make him unsure of what he thinks and believes, and hence to prepare him for assimiliation into the Fundamentalist Collective. They have whole sets of tracts to train them in these vile techniques, complete with scripts that they will run through come hell or high water -- it's been observed that top creationists similarly have packaged spiels that they absolutely must deliver in debates and other public presentations. Even more to plug into the Matthew 7:20 Test.Creationists live on and depend on ignorance. The creationist argument is basically "God of the Gaps", that a naturalistic explanation disproves God while our inability to answer something is proof of God. So when there is a mystery to be solved, the scientist wants to try to solve it, while the creationist wants to keep it a mystery. And in the process, creationists reduce their god to little more than a cockroach that, when the Light of Knowledge shines upon it, immediately skitters off to the dark refuge of a narrow gap of ignorance. They tell us how immensely they love their god and yet this is what they do to it.Edited by dwise1, : added second and third paragraphs

From Panda in Message 64: From AZPaul3 in Message 65: From Drosophilla in Message 78: From Bolder-dash in Message 79: From Dwise1 in Message 84: This is just a warning. The next message from anyone on this list who focuses his comments on the supposed deficiencies of his antagonist(s) will draw a suspension.Concerning the TopicThe topic is the origin of novelty, but discussion seems to have already moved on to conclusions. If discussion of the origin of novelty has competed then I can put this thread into summation mode, let me know.I think a thread about how one draws conclusions from incomplete data, which seems to be more the focus at this time, would be pretty interesting if someone wants to propose one.

I am not ready for this topic to be in summation mode. I am still holding out hope that someone, anyone will even make a decent attempt at explaining how they believe novel functions have developed.So far no one seems to have given it much thought on the evolution side, mostly they just can say, well yea, we don't know, but so what, why should we need all these details, I am already sold on the possibility anyway.But I am holding out hope, maybe there is a person who believes strongly in the theory, and also has actually thought about it.

Hi Bolder-dash,I think the answers you've been given are pretty much it. If you find them incomplete and unsatisfactory then there's nothing wrong with that, but that's a conclusion.There are always more details and examples that can be constructively explored, and the reasons why they are still unsatisfying or incomplete can also be constructively explored. For example, discussion of whether the adaptive process has a stopping point could continue. I can leave the thread open if constructive discussion continues.But it looks to me like the real issue now is how scientific investigation moves knowledge forward without having to first answer all questions, and that's a different topic. If someone wants to propose a thread somewhat along these lines I'll give it a look as soon as I can.

I would say this is characteristically wrong. Many proposals of step-by-step processes of novel features have been proposed: mammalian jaws and ear bones, cetaceans, amphibians, the eye, birds, etc. What is meant by a statement like this is that the resolution of such a sequence is not fine enough. The expectation is that we should have a record of every single step in the process. If this process does indeed take millions of years, then such a demand is absolutely ridiculous. If instead, all the extant species of today come from a relatively small number of originally created species less than 6,000 yrs ago, then the demand for this kind of fine resolution would be much more justified. The demand for such a demonstration should be much greater on someone who believes that, for example, the family Muscidae diversified from a single created pair into well over 500 known species in just 6,000 years. If that were truly the case, the resolution of this step-by-step process would have the level of detail that is usually being demanded.But since these processes are thought to take millions of years, we don't expect that level of detail. What we do is study the processes we can see and apply them to historical events. Does this prove anything? No, maybe not. But the attempt is not to prove what happened but to better understand it. The best we can hope to do is gain a better understanding of what has happened in the past.That said, I would like to submit to you the case of Elysia chlorotica. This organism is a sea slug that has the capability to live autotrophically. This slug digests the contents of a unicellular algae but keeps the chloroplasts intact. It then incorporates the chloroplasts into its digestive tissues. The interesting thing is that these plastids can survive and function for an extended time without the original algal nuclear genes. The genes for ancillary proteins needed for plastid function have been incorporated into the the sea slug's nuclear DNA apparently by HGT. The next step for this organism to become a true plant / animal is to transfer the genes from the plastid vertically into the germ line so the chloroplasts can be manufactured during development and no algal cells need be taken up to allow the slug to be autotrophic.So, step-by-step development of a novel feature:1. Slug eats algal cells.
2. Plastids are retained in digestive tract
3. Ancillary genes are incorporated into slug nuclear DNA by HGT.
4. Organism can survive autotrophically
5. Genes for plastid production are transferred to germ line (possible future event?)
6. Elysia chlorotica is a fully functional plant / animalUnfortunately, I don't have the time to fully unpack all the details of this study (I really shouldn't have taken the time to post what I have ...) but here are two papers on the subject. Maybe you could read through these and see if you think ifA. This represents a novel feature? and
B. Does the author present a plausible step-by-step process by which this novel feature has developed? The Making of a Photosynthetic Animal
Sea Slug Kleptoplasty and Plastid Maintenance in a MetazoanHBD

A cetacean, an amphibian and a bird, etc are explanations for the mechanisms of how novel features arose and spread through a population? Assuming we are still using the constructs of the English language for the purposes of these discussions, as opposed to maybe some kind of Hittite cuneiform or something, I would say that is categorically incorrect.Now, I can't open the papers regarding your algal eating slugs, but was this intended to describe a neo_darwinian process of mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for development? Again, unless this is some form of cuneiform, I am going to assume no.

The links worked for me, though the first one took a while to come up. You might try giving them a minute or two after clicking on them, especially if you have an average or slow connection.