|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Origin of Novelty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 659 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
If that is the purpose of the thread, then you should realize that you have been given this evidence. So, please stop obfuscating with these extreme mutations that will be detrimental to the organism a majority of the time(especially considering that these are not even applicable to the point you stated in your OP)
Earlier in the thread you were given different versions of eyes that show a step ladder toward the mammalian eye. Now, in this example only extant species were used, although it does show a plausible pathway that eye evolution may have taken, from a light sensing spot to a more concave design and finally to the mammalian eye. Then you were shown two different mutations causing a darkening of the hair color of the pocket mice, mutations that have happened quite recently in geological terms.
Bolder writes: Everyone of these mutations that started out as harmless defects can't have only happened in the past. If this is the pathway to all animal features, the mutations must be continuing today. What are some plausible examples of how this could happen in modern animals, starting from scratch? You asked for plausible examples of how these mutations can be happening in modern animals and you were given it in the pocket mice. At this point you decided to argue with hyperbole and to only discuss extreme mutations to draw attention away from the fact that you were given specifically what you asked for! You were also given ideas for how eyes could have developed. Is this for sure the pathway that was taken in evolutionary terms? Maybe, but it is tough to tell as we have only been studying evolution for a mere .00000333% of the history of Earth, not exactly a long study. However, it fits with the predictions of the ToE and nothing so far has discredited this theory. So, please stop throwing out random extreme ideas and let's continue on the topic you claim was the purpose of this thread. What was unconvincing about the stepwise fashion that evolution may have taken with the eye? 1. Would you agree that an organism which can sense light and shadow only would be better at evading predation? 2. Would you agree that an organism that can sense light and shadow from specific directions would be better off at avoiding predation than the organism which can only sense light and shadow but not from which direction? 3. Would you agree that an organism which can sense light, shadow and basic shapes with direction would be better off in competing for resources than an organism which can only sense light and shadow with direction?The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 659 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Faith writes: What I'm talking about is maintaining an established breed where you do not want novelty, you want purity. What you are discussing is artificial selection, not natural selection. Nature has no goal to maintain purity within breeds of animals throughout history. This does not mean it does not happen where some animals remain perfectly adapted to their enviroments, but there are still small mutations constantly changing even that population. Take the example of the coelacanth. Everyone referred to this fish when found as a fossil species, yet while bearing a striking resemblance to its ancestors there were still differences in the extant populations and the extinct ones. If there is an Intelligent Designer, would it not be more similar to how artificial selection works in the case of dogs. Humans are breeding for purity, so dogs remain similar to their ancestor populations. Would not the designer do the same thing? Why do we not see natural selection acting in concordance with artificial selection? Is the designer not exactly sure where he or she would like each species to end up?The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What I am learning from you is that there is no differentiating between a deformative developmental disease and any other mutation. The difference would be that a disease is by definition deleterious, whereas some mutations are beneficial. You really do seem to have some sort of mental block preventing you from learning biology. Why don't you just face the fact that you can't do it? Tone-deaf people shouldn't sing, you shouldn't try to talk about biology. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
Oh yes , you are so right tempe, it is so simple to just build an eye, step by step.
But lets not forget, if we are going to build it step by step, with RANDOM deformations (ok mutations, whatever) they have to happen at like random, you know like cleft palates. You wouldn't expect an undirected process to first cause the opening in the skull to happen exactly where the eye needs it first would you? I mean this is random, right? So these openings in the skull must happen everywhere, like cleft palates. We just need to be lucky enough that one day this cleft palate is actually more like a cleft lower forehead. You can't expect a linear series of mutations to happen so precisely correct? Unless, unless, the whole point of the mutation is to make an eye!!! I think I get it, its directed! No no, wait, that's what I believe , not what you believe. So let's stick with what you believe to be more likely. Cleft palates turning into useful functions. That fits your theory better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
No No No, Dr. A, I beg to differ. It has just been explained quite clearly by both Tempe and Taq and a few others I believe, that there is no difference between a disease and a mutation. It just depends on the environment.
Why do you feel the need to disagree with Taq and Tempe so strongly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Great idea for a new topic Faith-Dogs breeds and artificial selection. I fully support you to go for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
Is dwarfism a disease Dr. A?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No No No, Dr. A, I beg to differ. It has just been explained quite clearly by both Tempe and Taq and a few others I believe, that there is no difference between a disease and a mutation. It just depends on the environment. Now you're just talking gibberish. Which kinda proves my point. I know that we've explained the theory of evolution to you already. If you just don't get it, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Talking gibberish about it when it's plain you don't understand it, on the other hand, is kind of shameful.
Why do you feel the need to disagree with Taq and Tempe so strongly? Taq and Tempe did not write that "there is no difference between a disease and a mutation". That was gibberish that you made up in your head because of your mental problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is dwarfism a disease Dr. A? I wouldn't put it like that, that would be rude to dwarfs. What I would say it that it is deleterious and so tends to be selected against. Is there anything else really obvious that you need explaining to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
Now you are just talking gibbersih Dr. A.
You can't be doing that on accident Dr. A. If you don't want to learn something, then why are you here. Go read a book about biology, and come back when you can understand it. BTW, did you figure out how to go back and reread posts yet? Now, is dwarfism a disease or a mutation or a novel feature, or all three? Let's try to make some progress about how your side thinks things like ears form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh yes , you are so right tempe, it is so simple to just build an eye, step by step. But lets not forget, if we are going to build it step by step, with RANDOM deformations (ok mutations, whatever) they have to happen at like random, you know like cleft palates. You wouldn't expect an undirected process to first cause the opening in the skull to happen exactly where the eye needs it first would you? I mean this is random, right? So these openings in the skull must happen everywhere, like cleft palates. We just need to be lucky enough that one day this cleft palate is actually more like a cleft lower forehead. You can't expect a linear series of mutations to happen so precisely correct? Unless, unless, the whole point of the mutation is to make an eye!!! I think I get it, its directed! No no, wait, that's what I believe , not what you believe. So let's stick with what you believe to be more likely. Cleft palates turning into useful functions. That fits your theory better. You really don't get it at all, do you? As I say, this is nothing to be ashamed of. But there are only three options before you: (a) Give up trying to talk about biology.(b) Forget all the crap currently in your head and start again. (If you are genuinely as stupid as you come across as, this may not help.) (c) Continue to humiliate yourself in public.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
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. No, it is to point to observed instances where mutations result in novel and beneficial phenotypes through a gain in function. Creationists are claiming that it is impossible for this to occur, and yet we observe it happening. Therefore, evolution can and does produce beneficial mutations that are then selected for. My further point is to interpolate from known species. I have asked you to compare the human and chimp genomes and show me any differences between the two genomes that could not be produced by random mutations followed by natural selection. You have yet to even try. This is not extrapolation. This is interpolation from known end points.
What I am learning from you is that there is no differentiating between a deformative developmental disease and any other mutation. Then you are a poor student. What differentiates them is their impact on fitness.
And that eye eventually is going to need a fully formed hole, so we are going to need more of these grotesque mutations. Eyes evolved in vertebrates before bony skeletons, just so you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1181 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Faith, how is it that you define "novel"? Because I don't think you argue that nothing has changed since the beginning of creation. Do you think that organisms have only experienced degradation since the creation? What happens when an organism adapts to a different environment? Do they have a function or a characteristic that gives them an advantage in that new environment or are they simply one step closer to extinction because they are in a state of degradation and since the conditions have changed, and they also change to suit the new environment - which means they have degraded.
I just don't understand how you see this issue. What it seems to me that people here are saying is that a mutation may be deleterious in one environment but not in another. For example, there are two populations of foxes. One population lives in the Arctic and one population lives in Florida. Each gets the same mutation for white fur (which you may argue is a loss of function but it may actually be a gain in function since on a molecular level, the mutation may involve a protein that can now function to block the pigment production pathway. So while pigment production may be lost, the loss may actually be caused by a new enzymatic function). The mutation will be deleterious in Florida but advantageous in the Arctic. Same mutation ... same "deformation" ... different effect on fitness. I don't think anyone, but Bolder-dash, is suggesting that a gross mutation such as a cleft palette would be a beneficial mutation. That is merely reducto absurdum. What they are saying is that whether a mutation is harmful, beneficial or advantageous is not a simple, straight forward idea. Some things that may seem harmful at first glance may in fact, prove to be beneficial. Defining novel is an important part of the discussion. In the fox example I gave, I suspect that you would not consider white fur to be a novel feature. But why? Because there is no longer pigment being produced? But it could very well be that there is no pigment being produced because of a new function of a enzyme. It seems that opponents of evolution expect too much from the idea of novel. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Now you are just talking gibbersih Dr. A. You can't be doing that on accident Dr. A. If you don't want to learn something, then why are you here. Go read a book about biology, and come back when you can understand it. BTW, did you figure out how to go back and reread posts yet? Now, is dwarfism a disease or a mutation or a novel feature, or all three? Let's try to make some progress about how your side thinks things like ears form. That was gibberish combined with echolalia.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025