The Origin of Novelty

I did read the paper and you are misrepresenting the facts of it.First, how do you know they never had the ability to produce dark fur? There are eighty different genes found to affect fur color. Second they found I believe 5 different causes of the dark fur in five different populations-the mutation to MC1R was ONLY ONE of the paths found for black fur-in other populations there were other cause, why are you leaving this fact out? (I am not going to go back and read it, because frankly its a pretty pathetic attempt at rationalizing a novel change, when you already know that melanism existed long before the pocket mouse did).No wait, I will go back and read it, because I remember one quote: Didn't that even give you pause for thought at all?

We do expect to see convergent evolution muddying the phylogenies based on morphology and incomplete lineage sorting muddying the molecular phylogeneis. You are flatly wrong. Biology and heredity is a bit messy, and speciation is not a binary event but a continuum of genetic isolation. No one takes that paper seriously. The molecular phylogenies strongly reject the rather weak morphological comparisons that the author makes. As AZPaul states elsewhere, the ERV phylogenies alone strongly reject the hypothesis that orangutans are more closely related to humans than chimps. With all three of the other ape genomes now sequenced (gorilla, chimp, orangutan) the phylogeny is probably the best understood in the whole of biology.

You are not getting the point. The point is not whether or not we are more closely related to chimps. The point is what is the measuring stick used to decide this. can't you get this distinction?You are now saying the molecular phylogeny should get the nod. Fine. So then I think we need to discard all the fossil evidence of ancestry, because they use homology not molecular phylogeny. So now your tree of life doesn't match your tree of life.And where do you get this idea that Darwinian evolution predicts we should get convergent evolution. So the whole rewinding of the clock was bullshit? The results are almost inevitable regardless of the course? That's your random, undirected process? Yea right.

Yes. The evidence is clear.First, there is a huge selection pressure against the dark fur color in the ancestral environment. This is evidenced by the fact that the dark fur allele in Arizona never made it to the population in New Mexico, even though there is genetic flow between the light colored mice and the dark colored mice where the two ranges meet. If the those same mutations had appeared in the population prior to the appearance of the lava fields they would have been selected against and would have been removed from the gene pool of the ancestral species. Also keep in mind that the dark allele is dominant meaning that the mice only need one copy of the allele to have dark fur.Second, there is more variation in the Mc1r allele associated with the light colored mice than in the dark colored mice. This indicates a more recent selection event for the dark colored allele than the light colored allele, consistent with the appearance of the lava fields in the last million years which is well after the light colored mice established themselves in the surrounding area.All of the evidence supports the hypothesis that the ancestral population had light color fur and lacked the ability to produce dark fur. I am not leaving it out. In fact, I am citing this very fact as evidence for random mutations. Why do different mutations leading to melanism in two different populations falsify the fact that these novel features evolved? That's like saying that the evolution of wings on bats is not a novel function because birds already had wings.

I am saying that both need to be considered, but when one is giving a very clear phylogeny then it should be accepted. From observation of the process itself, with the pocket mouse being a perfect example.Added by edit:Perhaps a quotation from "Origin of Species" will help:

quote:

---

On my view of characters being of real importance for classification, only in so far as they reveal descent, we can clearly understand why analogical or adaptive character, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals, belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance; but such resemblances will not reveal will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of descent.--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
The Origin of Species: Chapter 13

---

Convergent evolution causing false phylogenies based on morphology was predicted by Darwin himself at the birth of the theory of evolution.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So from this study you conclude that some invisible un-evidenced sky jockey incompetent as a designer and blood thirsty in the extreme blew his nose and poofed all into existence?I will ignore your added quote from that stuffed-ego, lying, creationist shill from New Scientist.You should know that neither New Scientist nor Lawton are considered viable reliable sources for anything. Using their errant views and articles in no way supports your game. The number has been given already in this thread. So the big question for me is this: are you being deliberately obtuse again or are you really this dumb. Either way I have no great compunction to help you in this regard.

No, its like saying someone being born with dwarfism has gained a novel function because their parents weren't dwarfs.

And it is a gain in a novel function, but one that is deleterious. We also know that children suffering from achondroplasia are born to parents without the disease, even though the condition is dominant. Why is that? You guessed it. Random mutations, and we even know the gene where the mutations occur, the FGFR3 gene.Added by edit:Just to head this off at the pass, novel does not mean beneficial. Novel means new or not seen before. Determining if a feature is novel or not is not the same as determing if a feature is beneficial or not. Novel and beneficial are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi, Dash. Do I know that this isn't the case? I feel like this is the chimpanzee beards all over again. There were two populations melanic pocket mice, and one had specific mutations associated with genes responsible for coat color, which were perfectly associated with the dark-fur phenotype, and showed high prevalence in a population where all other genes appear to be highly mixed and variable. The other melanic population didn't had have these genes, and therefore derived its dark phenotype from some other mechanism (i.e., the two populations used different mechanisms).To me, this is fully consistent with a new mutation, a novel function, and natural selection. Therefore, it would seem odd for me to "know" that this fully consistent explanation "ISN'T the case." Would it be too much to ask that you read the two posts I have already written on blue-egg-laying chickens, and the two links I posted in the first one? After you have done that, I will entertain any questions you might have.But, if you're not going to do that, the answers are "yes," "yes," "yes" and "I think so."

Just so Bolder-dash understands these points, what you are saying is that the melanism that evolved in the other population did so through different MUTATIONS.I think it is quite entertaining to see Bolder-dash arguing against this example because melanism evolved twice in different populations instead of once. I guess too much evidence is a bad thing.

Exactly. I even complained through the correct channels about Dr A and have seen no results even though the moderators acknowledged I have a point. I wish I could carry on the Dates and Dating thread, but I got sick of Dr A's heckling there, and the problem isn't sorted out yet as evidenced here on this thread. Bias? I don't know the motivation, I thought they would appreciate a few creationists to talk to, but obviously not.

When you get done playing the persecution card perhaps you could respond to the non-hecklers?

I went that route. This thread is proof that route did not work.

No problem, I find your posts pretty factual, am looking forward to answering them. I normally have a delayed reaction to the better posts because they involve more challenging research, or even some humble pie.

Darwin predicted no such thing, you made that up. This is why you cannot quote him doing so.And a few seconds' worth of thought would have revealed even to you the craziness of your fantasy. Obviously Darwin was aware of numerous examples of convergent evolution. He would hardly be disposed to predict that none would be found, would he? And nor would subsequent biologists. Your daydream is as absurd as saying that if the theory of gravity was correct, you "would expect the moon not to exist, as Newton and other physicists had earlier predicted". They could see the moon, it's not something that we've only recently discovered. Strictly speaking, nothing's indisputable, all it takes is a crank with a soapbox. Would you settle for "indisputable by people who aren't idiots"? Why would you expect to see "all the small steps"? That is certainly not a prediction of the theory of evolution, so your expectation is simply wrong.The theory as such does not even predict the fossilization of a single organism; the proportion of them that have been fossilized is discovered empirically.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.