The Origin of Novelty

Well, this is really good news, we are finally getting somewhere towards the goal of explaining how novel functions arise. Or it pleases you we can say novel features-anything to keep you focused on the subject at hand is useful I feel.So, this is a theory, apparently supported by many if not all of the evolutionists here, on how novel "features" arise in a population. An organism is born with something like a cleft palate, or a deformed heart, or skin that can't adhere to its body. Most of the time these mutations are deleterious, but every once in a while there are environments where pealing, bleeding, scarred limps are actually a slight advantage. Perhaps they are selected because they look more childlike or vulnerable, or because choosing someone with this kind of condition, would make it less likely that other males in the population would try to steal your wife, etc.. Whatever the reason it becomes an advantage.Now, this skin disease eventually becomes so prevelant, that most of the females in the tribe have this disease, and if you are born without this disease, people feel there is something unattractive about you, too thick skinned, and so this disease because the popular norm in the population. Eventually the disease gets mutated to the point that the organisms have just blisters where skin used to be.Its a trade off, but evolution is all about trade offs in different selection environments.Finally we are getting somewhere.I think the important lesson to learn here, is that if your child is born with a cleft palate, don't immediately opt for surgery, because there could come a time when this gaping hole could be an advantageous feature.

Parsimony does not favor the least complex process. Parsimony favors the process with the fewest number of unevidenced assumptions. Evolution employs evidenced mechanisms while creationism does not, therefore parsimony favors evolution.Think about it. The production of a hurricane by natural processes is a very complex. It is much simpler to just say that Loki does it. Does this mean that parsimony favors "Loki did it"? Do you really think that is how it works?

Or dark fur that increases it's fitness in an environment with black lava. Why didn't you include that one? Why do you keep running away from the pocket mouse evidence?

And still running away from the pocket mouse evidence.We demonstrate that mutations produce beneficial and novel characteristics through gain in function. What do you do? Point to deleterious mutations and pretend as if the beneficial mutations do not exist. That's not very honest of you.

Yeah I get it I get it I get it already. It IS "novel," fine, and since Bolder seems to think there's something worth pursuing there I'll leave him to it. We have two or three different creationist arguments going on this thread as it is, somewhat related but different enough to cause confusion, and I should try to avoid getting my own mixed up with the others. So I am for trying to stay out of his and let him deal with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are dwarfs born to non-dwarf parents? Yes or no.

Why would they be different classifications, doesn't it just depend on the particular environment? Environments aren't stable, they are constantly in flux. Deleterious can easily be advantageous given the right circumstances.This is your whole point right? Why do we call amyotrophic lateral sclerosis bad, its neutral, it just depends on the environment. Maybe ALS patients have a better tolerance for cold.

I am not running from your beloved pocket mice, I am trying to draw conclusions from them so we can understand all of evolution.Essentially dark fur is the same thing as neurofibromatosis, it just depends where you live. Being born with elephant man's disease could protect you from predators.

If mutations occurred the way you think they do, you could not establish a new breed or maintain a breed, and that I HAVE argued at some length. Mutations as a matter of fact INTERFERE with the normal processes of evolution.On this thread, because there are so many of us, including three different creationist arguments, I'm trying to keep my input limited to bite sized pieces of my argument and not try to get the whole thing laid out at once.

And then, if enough people are born with elephant man's disease, they could become a new species-Homo-dumbo.

Of course the deleterious, neutral, or beneficial nature of a novel function is determined by the environment. I think we would all agree that the dolphin is highly adapted to it's environment. Could we turn around and say that the dolphin genome is full of deleterious mutations because the dolphin quickly dies if we plop it down in the middle of the Sahara desert? In fact, the dark phenotype in pocket mice is actually strongly deleterious in their ancestral environment where black mice stick out like a sore thumb against a light brown background (remember the picture I posted?). This is also why you don't find black mice in the ligh brown desert between the two black lava fields, and why the mutations for dark fur are not shared between the two dark fur populations. Who is claiming that ALS is caused by a beneficial mutation? Why do you keep ignoring the beneficial mutations that we have been citing? Why do you have to run away from the evidence?

Mutations were a vital part of the evolution seen in these experiments:Luria—Delbrck experiment - WikipediaREPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC

The conclusion is that the mutations leading to dark fur in pocket mice are beneficial because and it produces a novel phenotype through a gain in function. It is the very example of what creationists claim doesn't exist. It directly applies to the topic of the thread. Pointing to deleterious mutations or losses of function does not negate the observation of beneficial mutations or gains in function.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

BTW, we call mutations random because they produce beneficial, neutral, and deleterious changes. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, so pointing to deleterious and neutral mutations only further supports our argument that mutations are random.

Your hyperbole and utilization of extreme mutations that would require very specific environments does not cause anything detrimental to the ToE, whether or not you think that it does.Could some environment come along where these mutations bring benefit? Yes. Is an environment likely where nuerofibromatosis is beneficial? Very likely not. So, in the vast majority of cases, this would still be a deleterious novel feature that has its own functions.Your obvious effort here is to draw attention away from the simpler mutations that each and every one of us has simply due to the randomness of chemistry and the duplication process of DNA. You are avoiding the pocket mice by trying to draw attention away from this type of mutation and remain solely on deleterious mutations in the current environment. We are not falling for it, but simply answering your questions (for myself it is to show any lurkers that there are answers to your obviously horribly thought out questions, even though in most cases the mutations you speak of will remain deleterious).Could you not get your child the surgery for a cleft palate because at some point it could become advantageous? Sure, but that would be cruel of you to not give your child the best shot within the environment he or she is currently supposed to dwell within.Mutations are mutations and they will offer some sort of novel feature and/or function. It is still dependant upon the current environment whether the mutations will be deleterious (cystic fibrosis) or beneficial (pocket mice). Also, they can be neutral as well and be passed along further until an environmental change forces them to become one or the other.