The Origin of Novelty

So your answer is yes then, those examples I gave are other examples of novel functions, correct?

Kind of wrecks the whole point of this thread to define "novel" -- whether novel feature or novel function -- to include deleterious mutations but I can see how the evolutionist mindset comes up with such stuff. I suppose all it does is draw out the discussion ad nauseam, distract from the topic under discussion and force creationists to come up with definitions to get around the evolutionist roadblock. Ah well.

'Cos we can speak English and tell the truth. Both at once, not alternately! It's this talent we have.The word "novel" is not synonymous with the word "good". A novelty can be good, bad, or indifferent. If you really think that using words correctly impedes discussion, then let's stop.Here is an irrefutable argument in favor of evolution: insidious parakeets voluptuously macerate my ulterior uncle. I may not have used all those words correctly, but I'm still right. Let's see you answer that.

I did not say that artificial breeding does not reduce genetic variability. It does and in that she was largely correct. But what she seemed to imply was that breeding is accomplished by eliminating genetic diversity alone. The implication is that all the characteristics we find in dog breeds were originally in the wolf; they were just so well mixed that the phenotype that is expressed is ... a wolf. It just can't be that simple. The alleles that originally existed in the wolf population must have changed sometime during the selection process.Your position is that these alleles did change but that all such changes were actually diseases that humans thought were neat so they breed for that disease. Is that accurate?The problem is that when you try to oversimplify a situation like this it just gets reduced to silliness. Greyhounds were bred for speed, they are the second fastest animal on earth. Do you consider that a loss of function as compared to the wolf? It is not. But while breeders are selecting for this gain in function (increased speed) they are inadvertently selecting for less desirable traits like lack of body fat and thin, fragile skin and long, thin bones. Breeders did not intentionally select specifically for these traits, they were by products of the desirable trait - speed.The thing I wanted Faith to think about was that there is more going on that just allele frequency or eliminating Great Dane alleles to breed Chihuahuas.But I am sure you already know all this ... I guess if you define anything that is different from the original to be a disease ... then sure. Like little Buster who was born 20% larger than all his siblings and no one would play with him because he so was deformed ... its really sad when you think about it. But his human owners felt sorry for him so they found another reject puppy that was also freakishly large and introduced the two. They had puppies that grew up to be abnormally large, so they didn't feel so out of place. But no one wanted to own such a freakishly large dog - I mean who wants a deformed, diseased dog? So the whole family was euthanize and that put an end to freakishly large, diseased dogs. It just too bad that no one can find any dogs with any novel features - now there would be a market for that!HBD

I am actually pleased with this development, and I think it does help to explain how many evolutionists believe novel features arise. Nothing is deleterious so to speak, it just needs the right environment to cause it to become a useful feature.Like for instance, if you are born with a cleft palate, maybe someday in the future, when there isn't much air to breathe, have a gaping hole between your nose and mouth will make it easier to get more air in. I think I see what tempe and Taq are getting at.Here is another example:People with 'Butterfly' Skin Condition Triumph Through Pain - ABC NewsThese people are born with a skin condition that makes their skin rip easy, and peal off its bones. Often things like their hands become unusable because the scar tissue from all the wounds gets too thick.I think evolutionists believe that given the right environment where this would be favorable, these people could proliferate, and eventually perhaps become a new species.Its starting to make sense.

I think you would be more accurate using the word "feature" than "function". Which is presumably why you prefer the latter term to the former.Apart from that, if something is novel, it's novel. Novel doesn't mean good. If your head exploded, it would probably be the most original thing you've ever done, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing.A mutation which is spontaneous rather than inherited from the parents is novel at the moment that it arises. This is not a biological question, it's just English.

They are novel features, which cause novel functions...Cystic Fibrosis - novel function = abnormal transport of chloride and sodium across across an epitheliumNet result - Deleterious.Stump for arm - Novel function = Inability to utilize two hands, forced to work with only oneNet Result - DeleteriousCleft Palate - Novel Function = hypernasal voice resonanceNet result - DeleteriousNow, with these three, it is very difficult to imagine a environment that would make natural selection favor these novel functions, but it could happen at some point. Similar to dwarfism, currently it is deleterious, but if the environment changed to favor those that have a smaller stature, then those with this mutation would find favor in the environment.Again, you are ignoring the most important word, which is deleterious.Now, do you actually have an argument, or are you simply going to continue to ask the same questions over and over again, ad nauseum, even though it has been answered.

I think anyone not actually insane would agree that if there was an environment in which such a mutation was favored, then that environment would favor this mutation.However, the fact that there is no such environment, and that we certainly don't live in one, allows us to describe this mutation as deleterious.

It is not wrong to define the word as the English language defines it. The fact that you must change the word's definition in order to achieve your desired outcome should clue you in to the fact that you are defending an indefensible position. When the English language no longer serves your position and you must do mental gymnastics to find an answer, I think it is time to hang up your cross and pack it in.According to the English Language novel means new, not new and good, not new and good or pointless, but simply New. Any other addition to that definition is you changing the English language to fit your point rather than accepting what a word actually means. It would be analagous to me deciding that spinach=pizza so I get what I want for dinner.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot the word "be"

Yup, nature does isolate itself like the laboratory.

Hip hip hooray. I may have to copy that out, change the font to something formal like Olde English and put it in 72 point and hang it on my wall. Yikes, a tiny little concession. Means SO much. Yes, that is indeed my argument. You do not get new breeds, new phenotypes, either in the wild or under domestication, or keep an established breed pure, without reducing the genetic diversity, or once the breed is established, by keeping the genetic understructure limited to ONLY what expresses the characteristics of that breed. This is somewhat of a tangent to the argument I'm making but my guess is that today's wolves have evolved as much as the dogs that bred from the original wolf so that their genetic diversity is also much reduced from that of whatever the original population was, which might have been very much like today's wolves or not as much as we suppose. My argument includes the observation that whenever you isolate a portion of a previous population you get the familiar formula "change in gene frequency" which is what creates the new varieties or breeds and this can affect both the "parent" population and the "daughter" population which in fact can in some cases be hard to differentiate from each other anyway, since the numbers are affected in both cases and the greater the reduction in numbers the more dramatic the remix of alleles and the phenotypes formed from them. The smaller the portion the greater the phenotypic change and the greater the decrease in its collective genetic diversity. This doesn't apply to my own argument. In my argument alleles don't change, they just shuffle within the whole population from individual to individual, sometimes creating some interesting new phenotypes, but it is really only when a small number break off from the greater population that such new phenotypes become expressive to any noticeable extent. I don't think in such terms myself and Bolder's frame of reference may be getting confused with mine here. I wasn't arguing for a "loss of function" at any point, my argument is that in order to get NEW functions or features, new phenotypes, new traits, you have to isolate the particular alleles for those traits from others that would interfere, and that is what happens when a portion of a population gets reproductively isolated, and the smaller its numbers the greater the phenotypic divergence you should get from the original ALONG WITH a great reduction in genetic diversity. Of course the speed of the greyhound involves no loss of function. What it DOES involve is the isolation or selection of whatever alleles for whatever genes are responsible for creating that speedy bodily structure, which of course means that genes/alleles that would interfere with it are eliminated from the breed, left behind in the "original" population from which it microevolved. Yes, of course that can happen. The problem here is that I've been working on this for something like eight or ten years now and you aren't going to just casually get me to think about some other alternative until you've shown you understand what I'm arguing, which is far from the case at the moment.Since the rest of this post is clearly responding to Bolder about something that doesn't impinge on my argument at all, I'll stop here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you scientifically trained? If you were you would know that a novel function and a deleterious function are two different classifications.Right before your eyes you see mutations that produce novel morphology, and yet you deny it.

The evolution of dark fur in pocket mice is a gain in function, and you are ignoring it. Why is that?

If, after working for eight or more years, your argument that evolution must reduce genetic diversity still has no more support than "'cause I say so!" then I suggest that it is very likely that you are going down a blind alley.At the least you ought to have some evidence that mutations do not occur sufficiently quickly to make up for lost diversity. But I've never seen any hint of that.

So because we observe them in the lab it doesn't count? Really? Where did you demonstrate this? You are producing ad hoc excuses to ignore the evidence. The re-activating was a novel combination of promoter and gene resulting in novel function. The operon is new, and it was produced by duplication. Duplications are also common and observed. Are you saying that the known processes of duplication could not produce the observed lac duplications? If so, I would love to see the evidence for this claim. I am open to why you think they don't occur.