The Origin of Novelty

Are you actually going to claim that endogenous retroviruses show no relationships in the tree of life? Do you even know what we're talking about?

Ahh, that falsehood. That is based on your religious faith, not the facts about the how genetics really works, so I won't argue this with you. We both know nothing will convince you of the facts otherwise when religious tenants are involved. Oh, I don't know. This sounds like an origin of novel phenotypes to me. Well within the bounds of this discussion. Good night, M'lady. We'll talk again soon.

It is sort of on topic but both Admin and Bolder objected so that's enough reason to leave.No, it has nothing to do with religion, but YOUR position does. Mine is observable in nature, yours is pure hypothetical, otherwise known as blind faith.But NOW I'm off to sleep.

You just used endogenous retroviruses to dispute the study of shared unique physical characteristics between orangutans and humans, and you are asking me if I know what I am talking about? You are starting to sound like Bluegenes, running and ducking for cover.

No, I just used endogenous retroviruses to dispute a study that concluded the homo-pango clad was more viable than the homo-pan clad.And you still don't know what all the means do you. Thank you! I'm not sure he will like the comparison but I am flattered.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

My comment to you was about moderation, not topic. I agree with AZPaul3 that allele distribution would be on-topic in any discussion about the origin of novelty.

The study demonstrated that looking at homologous body functions and looking at molecular ones yields different results-something that would be wholly UNEXPECTED and as such UNPREDICTED by Darwinian evolution. Take your time and read that sentence slowly, and let me know any words which trip you up-and THEN try to tell me how endogenous retroviruses has anything whatsoever to do with that! Does the fossil record tell you which species are most closely related? Or does the DNA record? Since you were too scared to suggest which, I can certainly understand your need to obfuscate now, but you are only obfuscating yourself actually. I already see right through you very clearly.BTW, How much DNA do we ACTUALLY share with chimps, AZ?

Hi, Faith.It's been awhile.Having three creationists on one thread also kind of brings back the "good ol' days" again! I know it can be hard to accept evolution: it wasn't so long ago that I thought the same way you did about it. As religious people, we're so used to seeing everything in black-and-white. For example, your language here suggests that you think "assume" and "prove" are the only two possible ways to develop a conclusion.But, the whole point of science is to allow us to deal with information and draw conclusions when things aren't strictly black-and-white, using principles of trial-and-error and inductive reasoning.The two together are very powerful. For example, my two-year-old daughter can draw good conclusions using trial-and-error and inductive reasoning. If she gets punished for jumping off the couch, and she gets punished from jumping off the chair, she is able to infer that she will also get punished from jumping off the bed, and adjust her behavior accordingly.And, that's really all we do with science. It's not perfect, and it doesn't prove anything, but it lets us draw reasonable conclusions from incomplete information.-----For me, I see lots of reason to attribute all the differences in genotypes and phenotypes among animals to a process of "genetic accumulation," that is, each organism's attributes can be described as additions to, subtractions from, or modifications of some other organism's attributes. But, it's hard to transform my reasoning into a little blurb or sound byte that creationists won't interpret as an incomplete (and therefore dishonest) logical argument.All three creationists on this thread have argued that the apparent "additions" are not actual "additions," but simply evidence of common design principles. And, that's a fair enough hypothesis, but it needs some support.What I see is this:

1. In one population of chickens, eggshells are blue.
2. No other chicken population has blue eggshells, and the trait has never been seen in any population is likely to be ancestral to the blue-egged chickens.
3. The allele that makes blue eggshells differs from the one that makes white eggshells in two locations: one is an A where the white-egg allele has a T, and the other is a T where the white-egg allele has an A.
4. Random replication errors can make an A change to a T, or a T change to an A.
5. Also, blue eggshell pigment seems to be an "added" function, rather than a modification of an existing function, because it can co-exist with other, similar functions (e.g., brown eggshells)

When I pool all these observations together, I see no reason to think mutations couldn't have added this new pigment function to chicken eggshells. I can't prove that mutations actually did create this new pigment function, but I do know that mutation is a possible explanation, because all the evidence I am aware of is consistent with that hypothesis.Then, I combine that with lots of other examples of very similar things, like the beneficially-mutated gyrase that I presented to you in our Great Debate all those many moons ago, and the black-pigmented field mice Taq mentioned. All of these are consistent with the mutation explanation.I'm seeing a pattern: every time I see differences between two organisms, some error that DNA-replication machinery is known to make is always a possible explanation. There are other hypothetically possible explanations in every case, but most of them have ever been observed before, and none of them has the ubiquity of the mutation explanation. A pattern like this tells me that mutations are a very powerful explanation, even though I can't necessarily prove directly that mutations actually caused every single one of these differences between organisms.Does this reasoning at least make sense to you, even if you don't agree with it?Edited by Blue Jay, : Only one salutation is strictly necessary

Bluejay,If melanism is the cause of dark hair in mammals, and you already know that the supposed ancestors of the pocket mice had the ability to make dark hair why would you claim this is a gain of function? You think of the dark hair as a novel feature?Plus you also know that they found all different kinds of developmental paths that lead to dark hair, plus there are 80 different genes that effect hair color, why in the world would you believe in a simple mutation equals a simple result?

Hi, Dash. In the example of the chickens that lay blue eggs, a simple mutation does equal a simple result.

But you just tied this in with pocket mice, when you know this ISN'T the case. Plus do you think there is a gene for blue egg laying chickens? And this gene is passed along? Have they identified which gene it is? is this all the gene controls?The basic entire point of this thread was that when people first started believing in Darwinian evolution, they thought that there really was one gene tied to one trait. And so you almost could make a simple case of saying a mutation to that gene could give you something simple and new right away. But after we have studied genes more closely we know this isn't the case at all. Functions are handled by complex and confusing networks of genes, which are so vast that it requires a whole system of things to occur before physical change can be seen and passed on. If you can point to at least 10 different reasons for one small functional change, or even completely different pathways leading to the exact same function doesn't that open your eyes a bit and say wait a minute, this isn't mutation equals result?Its more like giant machines replacing their gasoline engines with diesel ones. Changing one spark plug isn't going to get you anywhere. Or more precisely, changing the rubber insulation on one of the wires that goes to one of the spark plugs to a slightly thinner compound isn't going to do get you anywhere. But actually even that is saying too much. More like one small part of one small section of the insulation to one of the wires that goes to one of the spark plugs suddenly gets a slightly thinner spot on it and that is going to switch you to a diesel engine-that is really what is akin to a random mutation being able to do anything.

If evolution were true, what type of similarities would you expect to see? Are you saying that if humans and chimps did share a common ancestor that they would not share any DNA?

The ancestors of the dark pocket mice did not have the ability to produce dark fur. The sister populations that live outside of the black lava fields still do not have the ability to produce dark fur because those populations lack the mutations found in the populations living on the black lava fields. This is a novel feature because the ancestral population did not have this feature. It is NEW to the species, and it was brought about by mutations in the MC1R gene in one of those populations. Did you even read the paper? They went into depth explaining why some or all those 4 mutations in the MC1R gene were responsible for the gain of the novel function.Just a moment...

I would expect to see one and only one change in a gene equaling to one and only one expression of that gene. I would expect to see zero convergent evolution, much as Darwin and other biologists had earlier predicted. I would expect the Tree of Life to be indisputable. I would expect to see somewhere in the fossil record all of the many small steps it took to go from one large tetrapod form to another. That's a start.If Intelligent design were true, what type of similarities would you expect to see between organisms?

If intelligent design were true you could not make any predictions, as each species, and indeed each individual, would be subject to the whims of a capricious and somewhat inept designer.