The Origin of Novelty

Then do you suspect a Direct Evolution might be possible which could be supported by the presence of Instincts in high animals?Instincts are learned responses that organism acquired while alive, which became integrated into their genetic make up, and reconstituted in their unconscious in future births of the species.Example:There's a marvellous little bird called the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva).
It does this fantastic thing, which evolution cannot even BEGIN to account for, and provides further proof if it were needed, that the theory should be abandoned.
The story begins in Alaska, where the birds breed. They lay their eggs, which hatch out normally, and the parents stay with them till they are reasonably able to take care of themselves.
Then the impossible happens.
The parents fly away, leaving them behind. But that's not the amazing part.
The parents now embark upon a 2,800 MILE JOURNEY to Hawaii, ACROSS THE TRACKLESS PACIFIC OCEAN, a journey taking about 88 hours of NON-STOP flying time.
In the process, they lose about half their body weight.
Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you?
Without instruments and maps?
There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.
If they're one degree off course, they'll end belly up in the Pacific Ocean. But even if headwinds/ sidewinds blow them off course, they still make it.
They summer there, and then, head back to Alaska, across another 2,800 mile journey, where they breed again.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

I would agree that there are thousands of examples of behavior, that are unaccountable under Darwinian evolution. I would certainly classify instinctively known behaviors as things that just don't make sense in a random mutation for everything model.Where in the genome is all of these experiences, that get passed on automatically, in the form of preset memories for offspring? I don't think Darwinists have any explanation for this. So yes, indeed I do believe in some form of learned experience translating into genetic information.And since Darwinists get away with it, those with alternative beliefs should just be able to call it, the 'modern synthesis of Lamarckism', so in that way its as vague and elastic as possible.

There are plenty of observations that show that to be the case. About how many research papers on the subject did you read before you came to your "not any observations" conclusion? I thought you might have bothered to find out about the subject before commenting on it on the internet. Perhaps you should look a little further into the subject. Or a lot further. Mutations certainly regularly cause disadvantageous novelty, which is what one might expect from randomness, isn't it? Are you claiming that mutations never produce advantageous novelty of any kind? Do you think I'd be likely to present that as an example? Unless you're in a population group that has ceased to use its feet (whale or snake ancestors, for example) that would almost invariably have a net disadvantage. That was your thinking, not mine, I'm glad to say. Well certainly, mutating feet away wouldn't tell you that a system of extremely complex and inter-dependent parts could be built. Is a research paper on mutating feet away the only one you've read concerning the novel effects of mutations? Perhaps you should continue your perusal of the research literature and see if there are any examples that help tell you how complex systems might be built. You would need to be very familiar with this literature in order to be able to reasonably establish your "no observations" claim that I quoted at the beginning of the post, wouldn't you?
Try looking for examples of advantageous mutation in general, and then for examples in which mutations build on other mutations to create an advantage (because that would have to happen in the build up of complex organs over time). You'll find that there's plenty of evidence for both. Many creationists know this, so I'm genuinely surprised that you don't.

Bluegenes,
Is there some reason you wish to be so mysterious? If there is all this evidence of mutations building upon themselves to form useful functions, rather than deleterious deformities, why don't your start mentioning a few of your favorite examples. This is a website for information you know. Now is your chance to show just how robust this theory really is.

In the post I was replying to, you claimed that there were no observations to support the view that mutations could produce novel function. The mystery is how you could think this is true. I asked you if you were claiming that there are never any advantageous mutations. You've avoided the question. But you're discussing biology on the internet, and criticizing its central theory. In order to even begin to do that, you should already be familiar with examples of mutations producing advantageous novel functions. Are you essentially admitting to knowing so little about the subject that your criticisms are meaningless? You're showing how robust it is as a best explanation. You do that every time you demonstrate a strong desire to criticise it, but fail to come up with any evidence based alternative. That means other explanations based on demonstrably real processes. Mutation, selection and drift are real.Speaking of information, you didn't actually base your claim that there were no observations to support the view that mutations could produce novel advantageous function on information at all, did you? Be honest, and admit that it was just desire based nonsense, which is why, of course, you've avoided telling me how many research papers you've read on the subject.So why are you expressing strong views on biology, while at the same time asking me for information that anyone expressing strong views on biology should already have?

bluegenesThis is one of the lamest, biggest cope-out posts I have ever read here. And I am including the things that Panda writes.Imagine if someone came on here an said there is tons of evidence to show that Intelligent design has been shown in research. And if you questioned that statement, all I had in reply was-"Well, why don't you go online and read all about it. Haven't you ever studied it. What evidence do you have that this is not true."That is the gist of your ramblings. You have nothing-and instead of trying to show otherwise, all you can say is, well, its there, its not my fault you don't know about it. Its weak, its desperate, and its dishonest. Why did you even come on here, when you have absolutely nothing to contribute?

Yes, I'm imagining hard. And if you've got any research papers which demonstrate examples of supernatural beings designing novel advantageous features in organisms, then why not make the suggestion? I'd willingly read them. I said more than that. I implied that it's entirely your fault. It's you who chooses to have strong opinions about biology while admitting to not knowing of one single example of mutations producing advantageous novel features. You've been on the board three years, and plenty of examples will have been posted. Is the problem that when you read them you don't understand them? Go through your 878 posts and find one which presents positive evidence for any theory of the origin of species other than evolutionary theory. Then assess your contribution. You can easily find examples of mutations producing novelty in my back posts.Here's the first question that I put to you on the thread, and which you avoided: Don't you agree? If not, tell us what the words "plausible" and "realistic" mean to you.

Perhaps there is a reason for that, having to do with understanding how evolution works; By building up gradually from primitive systems to highly derived systems via the evolutionary two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Random variation and then fitness selection, step by step slowly he turns ... But it is simple steps, simple to achieve genetically and simple to achieve in the phenotype that then subjects it to selection.It seems you keep forgetting\omitting\denying the selection process that makes each subsequent step dependent on the fitness of the previous step, building on previous evolutionary steps. Step by step. Random variation and then selection for fitness, over time builds up these derived systems from primitive ones.If you are dealt a 5-card hand and continually discard anything not a heart, to be replaced by new cards, are you likely to end up with an all heart hand or one that is a complete jumble?Enjoy.

Hi, Kofh2u This is not correct: instincts are not learned, they are innate. I didn't know anything about this particular species of bird, so I looked it up on Cornell's All About Birds website (link). Here are some things Cornell says about the migratory and overwintering behavior of the Pacific Golden-Plover:

quote:

---

...winters on islands across the Pacific Ocean, through southeast Asia, to northeastern Africa...

​

...The winter range of the Pacific Golden-Plover extends across nearly half of the earth's circumference, from California, to Hawaii, to Asia, to northeastern Africa.

---

So, there really isn't anything "fine-tuned" about this behavior, at all: some of them go to Hawaii, some of them go to Fiji, some of them go to Indonesia, and some of them go to Africa. And, undoubtedly, some of them go "belly up in the Pacific."This is not really difficult to reconcile with the Theory of Evolution.

...And some end up way off course... Pacific Golden Plover at Cley, Norfolk

Hi, Dash. Hox genes are actually really simple to understand.Basically, hox genes are kind of like a labeling system. A developing embryo can produce all kinds of molecular machinery to develop a given cluster of cells into an arm, an ear, or a gonad. The hox genes basically tell each cell which machinery it will deploy, and when it will deploy it.So, if this fish's three-eyed phenotype actually was caused by a mutation to a hox gene, what it means is that, when the fish was an embryo, the mutant allele labeled three areas of the body as "eyes," and then the machinery was deployed in all three areas, instead of just in two areas, like it normally would have.So, a hox gene mutant could theoretically cause the molecular machinery to "build" an extra, more-or-less complete eye on a human's shin. But, a complete eye that functions like a normal human eye would require the tissues around the eye to develop into muscles, an eye socket, an eyelid and an optic nerve, all of which may be driven by entirely unrelated hox genes.Single hox mutations don't typically produce fully functional, extra organs. So, I bet this fish's third eye was non-functional (like a certain band from the late 90's).Edited by Blue Jay, : superfluous "a"

I do believe in an old earth (Genesis: God created the heavens and earth and the earth was formless and empty - and then there was light, the first day)But I believe biological life is restricted to the last 6500 years. I will be going into this in more detail in the Dates and Dating forum after I have finished discussing DNA in various threads. As you said we have a current "snapshot" of the genome, through genome sequencing. I am wondering why evolutionists would look at a particular genome and believe it reflects evolution rather than creation 6500 years ago (with some evolutionary changes since then.) ie we see mutations, but do these look like 200 million years quantity of accumulated mutations, or 6500 years quantity of mutations. Maybe that isn't the best measurement, but my point is that evolutionists need some backing for their assumption that the genome "looks" evolved rather than created. I do understand this point, and do sympathise with evolutionists that current timeframes are not long enough to see any proof of your hypothesis. Until then we observe devolution and variation through sexual reproduction, which fits in with both creationism and evolution. That is why I am wondering why you would favor evolution when the snapshot fits in with both "hypotheses". Yes but that is more "creationist" thinking, the God-given ability of life to rapidly adapt when under strong selection pressures. Over and above this intrinsic ability, evolutionists are claiming life can get more complex, increased numbers of coding genes over time. Without that we would be green slime with limited genetic functionality. If I agree with all other evolutionary processes and assume they would be observed in 6500 years of biological creation, what in current genome sequencing would contradict my view?And if there is nothing in current genome sequencing or other biological studies that contradicts the view of 6500 years of evolution since creation, then what further biological evidence would lead evolutionists to favor the evolution hypothesis over creationism?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if all are aware of my particular theory on creationism. I agree with all evolutionary processes except the evolution of additional protein-coding genes. I believe ~6500 years ago God make highly adaptable organisms in a relatively safe environment. Designed to adapt to their environment through variations in protein production (promoters and enhancers communicating with the outside world) and sexual reproduction (new genetic combinations). This world then became unsafe, disease and mutations and rapidly changing environments and extinctions. Fortunately some mutations have allowed organisms to survive some of the new damaging environments (example: disabled Duffy gene in malaria areas).This is what I observe in genome sequencing and wonder why evolution is a stronger theory than creationism. Well if you put aside the source of biological life, (the supernatural process of abiogenesis compared to the supernatural God) and then look at the actual evidence with unbiased glasses on, does the evidence favor evolution involving increasing coding complexity? ie could the one species have a deleted gene (a common beneficial mutation), rather than the other having a duplicated protein-coding gene? Or maybe the duplicated gene is subsequent and yet non-coding, which is observed to add hardiness to an organism. We have to have an open-minded in depth look at each study to draw the most likely conclusions from the evidence itself. Good idea, I did appreciate your comprehension of my view, but let's rather carry on here for now, I like to deal with one thread at a time. Due to the fact that a lot of novelty is supposed to originate in mutated protein-coding genes, I believe the topic is relevant to this thread.

Thank you! I will reserve my complete assent, but this all makes a lot of sense. I believe that the general problem lies with evolutionists interpretation of the geological column as showing some long-term nested hierarchies, which isn't really applicable to this thread. What is applicable to this thread is the "snapshot" of genome sequencing, and whether that can in any manner support evolutionary theory. We observe categories, families, species. Is there anything in biology that would point to these having being evolved or rather created like that? Categories and groupings are a natural outworking of intelligent design (eg car manufacturers) , and if we both state that genomes "look" designed or "look" evolved" from common ancestors, well if that's all we can say then the theories are on equal footing. You conclusions about baramins all have the same degree of variance from eachother, I find illogical from the perspective of understanding intelligent design. Refer again to car manufacturers, they will make cars according to categories. Each category (4x4) will have their own range, and yet large overlaps of design within their 4x4 range. Some categories (sedans) will be split into two sub-categories (eg luxury/low income) and have a largely overlapping engine and chassis and drive functions compared to say a 4x4. So we get a Toyota Avanza and Corolla with basic core design similarities, yet a Toyota Foretuner and Toyota Landcruiser also have design similarities, yet the two groups are very different from eachother. So the number of groupings, and the likeness between groupings are not as spread as you are claiming. Two separate baramins could be highly similar without being the same baramin, then two other separate species could be recently evolved from the same baramin, the secret is to analyze the similarity of the genotype, not the phenotype.I agree with what you are saying about the maximum number of protein coding genes in each baramin,and that all nature could be quite easily divided into separate baramins. I currently lack the scientific ability to do this, relying on a non-scientific more intuitive process based on what seems obvious to me, hey that monkey differs from the other monkey by only 50 point mutations and one deleted gene, same baramin. That monkey differs by fifteen genes in chromosome 2, and 8 genes in chromosome 4, different baramin. The idea is that nature does not produce complex functions, and to duplicate protein-coding genes causes massive duplications of protein production that normally causes damage.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Or duplications of CCL3L1 in HIV areas (everywhere). Well, apart from the point I made above, and apart from the fact that it's blown out by the combined evidence of dating methods that crosscheck from archaeology alone, it doesn't actually fit what we see in genomes. Does your model have humans being created in separate groups on different continents 6,500 years ago? I ask because I'm wondering if you'd expect stone age skeletons (determined by their artifacts rather than dating that you don't want to believe in) on different continents to bear a greater genetic resemblance to each other than they do to modern humans indigenous to the same regions. What would your model predict? ???? There's nothing in physics or chemistry to suggest that chemical self-replicators can't form naturally. We don't currently have a strong theory of how the rings of Saturn formed, and of many other things, but it is irrational to infer supernatural causes on the basis of our ignorance of detail.There's infinitely more evidence for natural chemical processes forming chemical phenomena in general than there is for supernatural involvement in the earth's chemistry. Yes. Overwhelmingly. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the first two sentences, but I agree on the last.Edited by bluegenes, : inserted missing quote