The Origin of Novelty

Or maybe he raises a valid question. Not much in the way of a point, per se. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask a question in this way. "Given the evolutionary mechanisms we know of, what types of novel features should we expect to observe in the 200 or so years that we have been studying evolutionary process?" Would we expect eyes or wings or legs to pop up where they previously did not exist in a 200 year time span? Obviously not. There should be no reason to have to explain why we don't see that happening. So what should we reasonably expect? Wouldn't this be the case throughout history though? At any given time, an organism would have been adapted to its environment in such a way as to "have all its bases covered." Sounds kinda teleological Perhaps a different way of looking at this is the environment is quite stable at this point in history. It seems there is a correlation between a stable climate and stasis in the fossil record. Rapid climate change may drive rapid development of novel features. Although, I am not sure how strong this correlation actually is though. We may be in a period of stability and organism stasis. But with the changes coming due to global warming, maybe we'll get to see some rapid development of novel features. IMHO we need to have a much better understanding of evolutionary processes. We certainly have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge in the last 200 years or so but I think this has lead to the attitude that we pretty much have the process of evolution figured out, we just need to tie up a few loose ends. I would suggest we really don't know as much as we think we do. I think we are barely scratching the surface when it comes to our knowledge of biological systems and their evolution. It seems as if what bolder-dash is "bolder-dashing" about is this disparity between how much we think we know and how little we actually do know.When we better understand developmental processes and how the environment interacts with the genome through epigenetics and how mutations can affect both of these processes, then maybe we can have better answers to questions as to how novel features have arisen. For now, we can just do the best we can and offer some well reasoned and informed speculation (about the past).HBD

Hi Blue Jay Well perhaps they do....Have you seen the TV programme called "Stan Lee's Superhumans"? This is a show that goes in search of unique individuals with very unique abilities. Examples so far are:A man that can take currents of several hundred volts though his body on an ongoing basis (i.e. he acts as a current carrier to the point where he can heat up a hotplate to boil water!) - Scientists have found his electrical insulative ability is utterly unique among humans.A man with incredible explosive force in his muscles - he can bend wrenches into 'U' shapes and 'roll' frying pans and hold a 100 HP Harley from taking off for over 15 seconds. Scientists have found his muscle fibres are utterly unique in that they can all activate at once whereas ours can't get close to this.A man, blind from birth has learnt to echo locate by clicking his tongue just like bats. He is so good he can actually ride a bike and identify objects such as trash cans, phone booths and bikes on route. He is literally a human bat.It's a fascinating programme and shows that in our 6 billion strong species there are some very special talents out there - things you just don't think humans can do. I think some of these things demonstrate evolution in front of our eyes - unique individuals getting the next stages of ability not given to the vast majority of us by slight adaptation of our various senses and physiological hardware.The thing is, it is ever so slight, and subtle and gradual. When Bolder Dash looks at the 4.5 billion year planet history and sees the accumulated variation and species development he wants a demo of something big happening now. He is utterly unrealistic about how evolution works. It's like looking at the Himalayas that have raised over 30,000 feet in millions of years and demanding to see a couple of hundred feet rise tomorrow. I bet scientists can measure the Himalayas still rising though - but on the scale at which fingernails grow!! (the same rate as plate tectonics for that matter).Therein I believe, lays the creationists true problem. They only believe they have 6000 years for evolution to make its mark, If I too believed there was only 6000 years available, I’m sure I too would be a creationist (well maybe not!)!

Hi, Paul. Perhaps I should have said that he has a valid question, rather than a valid point, as Herebedragons suggested.----- The discussion has so far focused on skin cells evolving an ability to sense light and on "dimples" evolving on a pre-existing patch of photosensitive skin cells. Outlandish ideas like extra heads or gills have not featured prominently.----- If you can get past the abrasiveness and the intentional obfuscation, I think you'll find that Bolder-dash understands evolution rather better than you want to think. Here is Bolder-dash's Message 46 upthread:

quote:

---

So that's the first mutation that leads to an eye ? Ok fine,gets go with that. so then I just need a mutation which leads to a dimple or depression somewhere on my body and I will be able to feel that sunlight even more. Amazing.

​

Next we need the dimple to be passed to the next generation. I have not yet heard of these skin dimples which get passed along like this, would it be like a dimpled chin? It's still kind of hard imaging a dimpled chin focusing light.

---

This is clearly not a bad understanding of how evolution works: it's a bad understanding of how eyes work. He gets the overall story, but he thinks it falls apart because the details don't line up*. In both of the discussions I've had with him since returning to EvC these last couple months, his arguments have fallen apart because he misunderstood some detail about the system we were discussing. For example, he argued against sexual selection as an explanation for human hairlessness because he couldn't accept that apes and proto-human females might have had beards. On this thread, he didn't realize that concavity can improve the function of an eye.But, in both cases, he demonstrated an understanding of the principle of random mutation producing variation on a trait, and natural selection filtering the variants by survival/reproductive potential. He just didn't think carefully enough about the facts to see that they do, in fact, line up with the theory (or was intentionally refusing to admit that they line up). Either way, it's not a conceptual failure on his part: it's an empirical failure.-----On the subject of eye evolution, one of the most commonly-cited studies is Nilsson & Pelger. They used a mathematical model that allowed mutations on a variety of features of the eye, and introduced selection for visual acuity. Even when selection was relatively weak (i.e., the complex eye had only a slight advantage over simpler eyes), they got a complex eye to evolve in just a couple thousand generations.This is quite a powerful study, and has been widely disseminated by Dawkins. But, there is still one minor problem with it: Nilsson and Pelger defined exactly what the mutations could be prior to the experiment. That is, they assumed that there would be mutations causing variation in concavity, transparency and/or thickening of certain cell layers.But, in reality, what reason is there to believe that a patch of skin might randomly develop a concavity on it? Do we see random concavities on animal integument today? If not, then what reason can we possibly have to believe that animals millions of years ago might have fortuitously received a concavity in a place that was extremely useful to them?You have to admit that, on face value, it does seem uncannily fortuitous. So, it's not an unreasonable question. Bolder-dash is too quick to "bolder-dash" to conclusions because of it, but it does warrant some careful thought on our part.If the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the origin of eyes, one of three things must be true:

1. The co-occurrence of photosensitivity and concavity was extremely fortuitous
2. Photosensitivity and concavity are actually common mutations, and their co-occurrence was simply a matter of time
3. The two traits are linked somehow (i.e., something about photosensitivity facilitates or promotes concavity)

We have to reserve judgment for now, because we don't know how to decide which of these possibilities is correct. In the interim, we're going to subject to a lot of criticism, but inaccurate criticism of the creationists isn't going to help our cause at all.

So you can tell which direction the sun is by feeling it on your clavicle better than you can on your forehead, huh?Very interesting.

Really, Dr. A, is that right? Someone here has described the steps that occur to go from nothing, to a complex organ or body system? Who has done that. Are you talking about showing pictures of many kinds of eyes? Is that what describing the steps is like. Or are you talking about RAZD claiming that if you just somehow, luckily got an indentation, just anywhere, that would sure be useful to telling which direction sunlight would be wouldn't it. Wow what a brilliant theory, no wonder they have you hooked A. All it needs to do is fool a kindergartener. I bet you have a great clavicle lens.Or maybe that's not it either, maybe you just think that saying, no one has ever proved irreducible complexity. Is that describing steps? Were you blow away by Kenneth Miller comparing life to a mousetrap being used for a tie-clip. Did that tell you all you need to know to be a strident believer? "Yea, it's true, a mousetrap really can be used for a tie-clip! Now it all makes sense! Honey, where are the fruit loops?"Let's just forget about explaining how one feature can be selected for, at the same time that 50 or 100 mutations are also being selected for in each generation. I mean, yea, you got a bum leg, and peeling skin, but that handy clavicle feeler is sure making you hot to the women. And you got a sort of pancreas like mutation that is feeding you finger-nail enzymes, which eventually will mutate to regulating blood sugar, and that is being selected for over the guy who has a mutated gill which doesn't tell his pyloric valve when to close, but he has great early sweat like glands. He will get his chance to develop those in a few hundred more generations, while he is competing against the guy with bones that can bend. That is the beauty of this whole random process.But hey, it all works, please don't bother me with all the details, my brain hurts. "Honey, where are my dam fruit loops!"

Blue Jay,I think you stated just one of my objections very clearly: I think this problem becomes even more deep when you just look at the vast array of things we have to account for. Saying a skin patch gets a dimple is not just problematic because of the lack of any real examples to point to, but because this is even a grain of sand in the giant desert of mutations that are weird at fortuitous that we would need to account for. A cornea, a liquid filled sack, tear ducts, irises, photo receptors,.... You not only have to account for all of these odd mutations which in itself seems preposterous, but you have a thousand other systems going on at the same time, ALL of which need these crazy things to happen, and NONE of which we ever seeing happening randomly.It makes the problem seem so less daunting when RAZD can just throw out the notion that well, we know what dimples look like, so now all you need is one of those, and your are already halfway to an eye. A dimple is probably the simplest darn mutation you could ever think of, and even that is a huge problem. When even your dimples don't make sense, how are you going to get to a pupil? Talk about Mount Improbable.I mean, your side is already so far up against it just trying to explain this, and we still have a million other complications. How can you select for one feature, when you are also selecting for a thousand others. How can you get a mutation to something as specific as eye features, when it involves multiple genes, and not just one? Genes work in concert with many other genes, controlling multiple functions, how can you change one, without detrimentally effecting other functions. And the list goes on and on.So yea, not seeing these precise dimples is a problem, in the same way that not having a cigarette lighter would be a problem on Mars. Your problems have only just begun.

This appears to be gibberish.When you've figured out what question you would like to ask, let me know.

Hi, Bolder-dash. It's definitely a complicated issue. In the end, though, out of all the theories and hypotheses and other ideas out there, the Theory of Evolution comes the closest to providing a good explanation for all the mess. Here's why:

1. We can observe that most of the differences in phenotype between groups are due to differences in base-pair sequences within genes (either protein-coding genes or regulatory genes)
2. The diversity of life fits within a nested-hierarchical pattern that is indicative of cumulative changes to base-pair sequences over time
3. We have observed random mutations producing exactly such changes to base-pair sequences as would account for the observed patterns

Your objection is basically your own incredulity: the probabilities involved seem too hard to swallow. And, I agree with that: intuitively, the probabilities seem extraordinary. But, I am still inclined to accept that the best explanation (ToE) is, in fact, the best explanation. The ToE would not be so good at fitting the evidence if it was completely and irreconcilably wrong, so any perceived shortcomings are most likely explained by the incompleteness of the theory, or by our own misunderstanding of its elements.By comparison, an alternative explanation, Intelligent Design, posits that all the patterns we chalk up to evolution are either due to common design principles or to the whims of a designer, neither of which has any meaningful measure of explanatory power. Furthermore, the mechanisms of Intelligent Design are unspecified, and completely unattested.So, if I am forced to choose between an explanation that fits the evidence well and relies on mechanisms that have been documented, but strains my "common sense"; and an explanation with dubious fit to the evidence, no documented mechanisms, but a comfortable fit to with my superstitious fears about the uncertainties of life... I consider it responsible of me to quiet my superstitions and accept that the most likely explanation is that my "common sense" is mistaken.

This is an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Claiming something is preposterous is a long ways away from actually demonstrating that something is impossible.Even more, the pattern of shared and derived sequences between species exactly matches the pattern we would expect from random mutations and selection (along with other mechanisms such as genetic drift). We have the evidence that these mechanisms were active in the past.Do you agree that the differences between humans and chimps is due to a difference in DNA sequence? Yes or no? Mutations in just one gene can change the development pattern that involves all of those genes.

I don't believe it is just a common sense problem, it is a evidence problem-the evidence isn't there, no matter how much evolutionists promote it.Nested hierarchical pattern not only do nothing to show the mechanisms which formed them, them are also controversial in their own right. Depending on which criteria you use, you can group organisms together in all sorts of ways-animals are that appear closely related end up having more in common with animals that are hugely different in form and function. How do you group your nests? Again this another bit of fabricated evidence that doesn't exist. You can't look to bacteria and say this is an example of life evolving to more complexity. Because in the end, we never see complexity come into fruition. We see the opposite, we see stasis of complexity, and even returning to previous versions once a supposed new addition is added. The bacteria never become more complex in form no matter how long we look at them. I don't see the relevance of this to emergence of a novel form. You are not even talking about the edition of new phenotypes, plus a directed, teleological form of evolution could display the same base pair differences. So this isn't evidnce for the theory either.In fact, since you already know, as herbedragons pointed out, that the story could never be as simple as just RM/NS, how does the fact of this not keep you from saying, that since we know something other than RM?NS is controlling part of life's development, why not just assume that it is controlling ALL of life's development? You know RM/NS can't account for everything, so why assume it counts for anything?

Its not a logical fallacy Taq, you saying it is a logical fallacy is the logical fallacy.What I have stated is that since we don't see happening what your side claims happened to make all these novel features, the logical assumption is that it didn't happen. To say that just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen is has no more weight than any other thing you can't think of but can't see. Its just pure speculation, but with the unfortunate disadvantage that it becomes less and less likely the more we look and can't find examples.Yea, the difference between all organisms, not just chimps and humans, is the difference in its DNA. You keep confounding this with the idea of WHY there is a difference. You have done that in some many arguments in this forum, that I just can't understand why you keep trying to confuse the two issues. You can't see the difference of what we are talking about here? Absolutely not true. We have no idea what the pattern of shared sequences between species would be if the difference was teleological or random. We have zero way of knowing which pattern we would see. You are incapable of saying what the DNA of related species should be, and in fact the human genome experiments confirmed exactly this, by showing that we are more closely related to sponges by some measurements, and to rice plants in others. The patterns turned out to be nothing that was predicted. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

I think this is the crux of it.Kipling's Just So stories appear at times to be as good an explanation to the sceptical as those that biologists often put forward.The truth is that we don't know how the giraffe got its neck or the zebra its stripes and in the process of speculation - it's really not much more than that - we appear to give the impression of scientific certainty.What we do have in the place of testable evidence for a particular organ development or physiological feature is a massive amount of information from a variety of disciplines that prove that the overall case for evolution is sound. This allows us to reasonably infer an evolutionary pathway without actually having the evidence to prove it end to end.In other threads we've looked for actual genetic evidence for the creation of novel features and found it extremely hard to pin it to the wall in a totally convincing way. We're not far away now, so instead of trying to show by inference things that must have happened thousands of millions of years ago, we should spend most of our time trying to find modern mutation and the genetic pathways that caused them.

Taq,Is the fact that you have not done so up to this point in this thread, a tacit admission, that yes indeed, it is true, you can not describe a series of events, both within the organism, and within the behavior of the species population, which could describe the emergence of a new novel complex function, which makes sense in the whole scope of the animals development?It seems neither you, nor anyone else is willing to really try. I don't find RAZD's example of skin dents to be compelling at all, plus they don't even deal with the issue of competing mutations which would be struggling for attention in parallel with the eye's development. So what we can say is, it seems, no one here at least, can or will even come close to describing their theory.

If this is right then his "abrasivness and intentional obfuscation" mark him as a troll. He is not here to debate or ask or learn or inform. He is here to throw sand in everybodys face.I think he is ignorant of the subject, willfully so. I think he refuses to study the concepts, to hear and understand the evidence or present any alternatives in any informative way. I think the cognitive dissonance between the facts of evolution and what he so desperately wants to believe is too much for him and he needs to lash out. A noble and worthy goal. Kudos for your patience and composure. With this twit I lack both.

You make me laugh AZ. You seem to think the concepts of your theory are so complex and difficult to grasp. "Um, gee you see, first we get random mutations, and then slowly we get another one and those that get good ones survive better. See, see, you can't get this. Its like complicated man. Because you are a troll dumbie!" Its very funny.The topic is not about alternatives to your theory, the topic is discussing whether or not you can even describe how your theory works in practice.Since you can't do that, I guess that makes you ignorant of the subject. Pictures of different eyes. What a ******* joke. The problem is much more complicated than pasting pictures of eyeballs, you internet genius you.