The Origin of Novelty

Well the pattern wouldn't look like a hierarchal nested tree that's for sure (unless the 'creator' was a blithering idiot that limited his own inventions).When steering locks were invented by Toyota, they didn't just stay on Toyota's. When antilock braking systems were invented in 1929 in the aircraft industry they didn't stay just on aircraft. A good 'intelligent designer' will apply inventions across an entire product range if it is good.Contrast that with the cephalopods versus mammalian eye. The cephalopods have eyes with the optic nerve connections entering from the back of the eye (optimal configuration), whereas mammalian eyes carry a mutation(s) that forces the optic nerve fibres to penetrate the retina and attach to the photosensitive cells from the front - in the way of the light which the receptor cells are trying to gather. This significantly reduces the light available to a mammalian eye through a simple engineering 'fuck up' (alias mutation).It is very difficult to see why an omniscient creator would engineer that sort of balls-up deliberately into his creations - to give them sub-optimal systems - If a human engineer did that he's lose his engineering licence - and rightly so.So - to repeat - the pattern of species based on a hierarchal development system is EXACTLY as predicted by the ToE and utterly not what should be predicted by an intelligent creator.Simples really!

There's two SAS genes, and two antifreeze genes. Scientists noticed that some sections in the SAS genes look like some sections in the antifreeze genes. These are the facts. From then on these researchers interpret the facts according to evolutionary theory, without any backup evidence for their conclusions.Their conclusion would be more believable if they proved that the organisms with the antifreeze genes came exclusively from a population that only had the SAS genes, unfortunately its only an assumption on their part that the antifreeze genes came from the SAS genes, based merely on similarity of sequences.

Nested hierarchies means random mutations and natural selection?Let me just clarify this-no it doesn't. Simple really.What animal alive today is most closely related to humans?

Scientists assume that what looks like paralogs are paralogs. They assume that the known process of gene duplication is responsible for pairs of genes that look exactly as if they are the results of that process. They assume that what looks like a frog is a frog, produced by the processes known to produce frogs.Now, would you like to demonstrate the existence of another process that produces apparent paralogs
or apparent frogs? Merely. Would you like to describe another known process other than duplication by which genes which appear to be duplicates can appear in the genome of a species. A known process.And having done that, as it's your claim that all apparent parologs in genomes aren't paralogs, how are you going to set about showing that this is true?

Yes. But only if you accept that the greatest diversity being outside the Middle-East falsifies your model. Yes. Try. Find out where the greatest genetic diversity is in the world.

We would not see fewer non-synonymous mutations than synonymous mutations in genes. We would not see a nested hierarchy. We would not see the accumulation of mutations in junk DNA consistent with neutral drift. We would not see a correlation between ERV LTR divergence and phylogeny. In the pocket mouse example, we would not see less sequence divergence in the dark fur allele compared to the light fur allele. In those same pocket mice, we would not see different mutations in genetically isolated populations. Those are just a few off of the top of my head. I can list more if you like. No two mutations are alike. For example, just one mutation is responsible for the change in foot morphology amongst the Vadoma people:Atlas Obscura | Curious and Wondrous Travel DestinationsAt the same time, a single substitution may have no impact whatsoever on morphology. It's not as simple as 1 mutation equals a set amount of change. Doesn't work that way. That would be the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.Texas sharpshooter fallacy - WikipediaEvolution does not have a goal that it is striving towards, or a target it is aiming for. For every one function that requires 7 mutations there are billions that did not evolve. The dark mice evolved from light mice which required a gain of function. This gain in function was produced by random mutations followed by natural selection.Why are you in denial? Yes, they did. Their genomes were different due to random mutations producing divergence between genetically isolated populations. Different mutations, different results. Same phenotype.Edited by Taq, : switch synonymous and non-synonymous. always get those backwards.

A nested hierarchy is what we observe random mutations and natural selecton producing. Therefore, if life in the past evolved through random mutations and natural selection then life should fall into a nested hierarchuy, and it does. The chimp and bonobo are the two species most closely related to humans.

Hi, Dash. Look at human hair as an example. There aren't just a couple defined "colors" of hair: it's a gradient of shades. That's what you expect from polygenic traits: each individual mutation would have a subtle effect on the phenotype, so you can have any number of subtle shifts in color. The effect that a mutation will have on functionality depends on the exact nature of the mutation, so how can you know that it will take 7 mutations to change the phenotype? This implies that there are 7 genes that have the exact same function, which is unlikely. It's more likely that they would vary slightly, and each would have a subtle effect on phenotype. In Taq's example, the novel function is production of a new type of melanin.Here's another, similar example: chicken eggshell pigments. Chicken eggshell color is a polygenic trait, like human hair, and traditionally varies from white (no pigment) to various shades of brown. But, there is an unusual breed from South America, the Araucana, that lays blue-shelled eggs. This lay review of chicken eggshell color explains a lot of the details. Basically, blue eggs result from blue pigments produced in the "shell gland" (a gland in a uterus where the shell is synthesized). They are secreted as the shell is forming, so the entire shell is saturated in blue pigments. In contrast, brown pigments are only laid on the surface. So, the function of pigment secretion mechanism is different.The blue-egg allele is a mutation to the oocyan gene (apparently, there are two point mutations, an A-to-T, and a T-to-A), which alters one step in the process by which eggshell pigments are synthesized. This alteration results in a blue pigment that is quite different from the typical brown pigments. The blue pigment is also secreted differently.Interestingly enough, when you cross-breed blue-egg layers and brown-egg layers, you get a green-egg layer, which produces both kinds of pigments (blue saturating the shell, and brown layered on top). So, blue eggshell pigmentation is a new function that's added to the previous function, not an alteration that takes the place of the original function.

The word complexity is a simple word (lol that's ironic). I don't see why its meaning should be limited to phenotypes in any manner. But pleeease do not start a sideline conversation on the meaning on the word. I'm happy with your piston engine analogy. The word "homolog" is a word used under evolutionary assumptions, under the assumption of baramins the similarities would be design similarities. I do not see any actual evidence that favors the homolog assumption above the baramin assumption. You are wrong I was forced to use the word complexity in a manner that was measurable in another thread, and am happy to continue to apply it to only coding genes in this thread too if you wish, but the word has a much greater meaning.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

(a) The known processes of genetics.
(b) The known processes of genetics, plus an invisible creator.
(c) The known process of genetics , plus the sudden creation of biological life by lifeless nature - lol yeahDo you know that to base your beliefs on an unproven process and be confident in that unproven process is faith. And to have faith to such an extent that its a major part of your life, is religion.So you may not realize it, but you are a very religious man Dr Adequate, the religion of abiogenesis.

All evolution needs is (a). How life got started is irrelevant to how life evolved once it was here. In the same way, what you learned in high school chemistry class will not change if we find that a deity magically poofed the universe into being. Isn't it strange how the faithful use faith as a derogatory term. Funny that.

Apologies Bolder-dash, I'm often distracted by the side-issues but will attempt to ignore the other topics of the flood, abiogenesis, population movements etc I'm also on this thread regarding the origin of novelty, focussing on novel genes. Unfortunately evolutionists fail to see their circular reasoning even when you point it out, but that's really all they got, circular reasoning.

(1) Please do not lie to me about what I think or why I think it.(2) Why are you lying about abiogenesis? We were talking about evolution.

And if your hallucinations involved flying pink elephants, we'd also fail to see those.

Well we both agree that life just appeared. We both agree on the processes of evolution.So what are we discussing then if we are both in agreement?
The essence of my debate is whether genomes are evolved from baramins 6500 years ago, or evolved from a single common ancestor about 600 million years ago. Except for BlueJays nested hierarchy/fossil argument, I haven't seen much evidence for the evolutionist position.