The Origin of Novelty

No Huntard, he didn't call it a novel feature, he called it a "novel function" I know you are from the Netherlands, are you stoned?The two are not the same. A novel feature is not a novel function. But I would argue its not even a novel feature. Having bones that don't grow is not novel, anymore than having one less arm is a novel feature or function. If that were the case, then every aspect of the body would be called a novel feature, like for instance if your parents arms were 24 inches long, and your were 26, you might call that a novel feature. And you would be wrong of course.I know you hate it when your side is losing so bad, but trying to lie to save them face just makes all of you look stupid.

Dr A,Do you need me to describe to you , in very slow and simple terms, how to go back on this forum and reread posts? I would be happy to, because I know that you that you are so busy trying to come up with your latest "novel" put down, that you never have really had the time to understand how to use some of the more advanced features on this site, like going to back pages and stuff like that. You do understand what a page is right? And reading, you kind of know that, correct?Or I could just copy and paste his post RIGHT HERE for you-but this way is so much more fun for both of us, don't you agree?

Apology accepted.Actually Oni is the pussy, he is afraid to look at things sober.

I am very fascinated by all the evolutionists who think that dwarfism is a novel function. I think its quite enlightening.So how about my other examples, a cleft palate, being born with a stump for an arm, or with only half a heart-these would be novel functions as well? How about being born with Cystic Fibrosis?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Taq,I am simply following your line of reasoning. There is no such thing as beneficial or deleterious, it all depends on the environment. If someone is born with ALS or elephant man's disease, there may well be a time when humans consider this to be the most attractive type of male, because they look strong and able to withstand medium caliber bullets. So basically it impossible to know if a mutation is deleterious or beneficial, we have to wait and see what the environment does.Maybe people will be attracted to Homo-Dumbo, because of their feelings towards Republicans.

tempe,The point of this thread is trying to explain in a step wise fashion how new novel features arise in a population. How does a kidney form, or an ear.I have to use the evidence that your side is giving to form some sort of story that your side can agree on. Your side hasn't given much to go on, but finally we are getting somewhere. A mutation happens-something like dwarfism, or elephant mans disease, or fur that is suddenly ****** up, and makes itself dark, which just so happens to also be the same mechanism that protects animals from the harmful effects of sun rays-but this is just an accident, just like a cleft palate is an accident.So this is the first step-we need to establish this theory first.

I am confused by what this has to do with explaining how a new novel feature arises in populations. Are you describing one of the steps in the process? If not, can we get a new thread for this?

I realize you are having two different arguments. I am not really understanding how your discussion is related to the topic. Can you just start a new thread which can explain it? Thank you.

taq,I believe the whole point of your pocket mice is to extrapolate what this means for all of evolution, how it relates to new body plans. We have to figure out how this can create a fully developed and functioning ear.As pocket mice fur doesn't really tell me much about a step by step process that is going to equal a complex body system, I need to use your principals, and expand upon them.What I am learning from you is that there is no differentiating between a deformative developmental disease and any other mutation. if someone is born with a cleft palate in their face, this could help your side explain how an ear came to be. because we know we need extra holes in the head, to account for an ear-and this is what a cleft palate looks like. Now that gaping hole in the face just needs to slowly drift around the organisms head, while another gaping hole just needs to drift in the opposite direction. This is the start of an ear canal, right? I mean this is similar to Razds concave dimple theory for the eye, right?And that eye eventually is going to need a fully formed hole, so we are going to need more of these grotesque mutations.Slowly we are chipping away at the layers of dust which cover over the facts that your side believes can lead to what we once thought of as irreducibly complex body parts. I guess a cleft palate really could serve a purpose in your theory.