The Origin of Novelty

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.

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?

Great idea for a new topic Faith-Dogs breeds and artificial selection. I fully support you to go for it.

Is dwarfism a disease Dr. A?

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.

And yet there are plenty of dwarfs that happen to live perfectly healthy long lives, right? So its not exactly selected against.You seem to be using you world view bias to decide what is deleterious and what isn't. I think the evolutionists view is that all mutations are neutral (at least until the environment says otherwise), and some just so happen to catch on.

Are you trying to show off your debate skills?

Right!And, according to you, it is a gaining in function. Just like dark fur and elephant man's disease. And THIS is how you believe evolution works!

So, where were we, after some rude interruptions from a drunken math professor?Oh, yes, I remember, how do we go from nothing to a fuly formed ear or eye. well, first we start off with a mutation (which we now know can also be called a deformity, a disease, or even a developmental retardation). We are not to judge these conditions, so long as the organism can live. Who knows what nature will favor.So you see, ALL of these things that you see in nature, that work so unbelievably well, despite the protestations from many an evolutionist, that its not the design they would choose, the point is, all of these intricate, precise pieces, which go together and form a near perfect focusing lens, with provisions for filtering light colors, for tracking fast moving objects, for seeing in various lighting conditions, for focusing at various distances, for self cleaning, for binocular sensing of spatial differences, for fast scanning of symbols, all of these features are products of these deformations, these diseases if you will. They are nothing more than the fortuitous timing of many many cleft palates, which slowly got better.All of these cleft palate like deformations, they happened randomly. But over time, good old natural selection found a use for them! In fact natural selection found a use for every one of the thousands upon thousands of cleft plate deformities. I know it seems ridiculous that each cleft plate like deformity would really be useful enough to confer an advantage-but hey, the secret recipe is time!Either believe this, or believe that there was something inherently intelligent about the design process. The choice is yours.

Classic!Let's all drink to not understanding the Theory of Evolution!

What you are saying is exactly correct. The evolutionists want to point out all these mutations, and try to come up with some that are somehow going to benefit the organisms and lead to greater complexity and functioning. Only they have a big problem, because every time they talk about mutations which are visible and can be observed in species, these mutations are all very deleterious to the animal.The changes that we have in dof breeds are much the same way-they might make for interesting pets, that are cuddly and cute like a chihuahua, but they certainly don't make for healthier animals that are going to win in a game of natural selection. And when these mutant breeds of dogs are left in the wild they would almost certainly have to return back to their ancestral form very quickly in order to survive. And in fact, the same thing even happens with all the bacteria we study in labs. Evolutionists love to brag about the great mutations like nylon eating capabilities, that prove so well, how one small mutation can one day lead to a whole new organism. And yet these bacteria always end up reverting back to their old state, like it was nothing. They never go anywhere. And neither do the dogsSo if they want to explain speciation and complex new functioning by means of "novel" mutations, about the only things they have to work with are dwarfism, cleft palates, and peeling skin. But I guess if you got nothing else....And looking at them complaining mightily because of the box they have painted themselves in. Will, you please stop talking about dwarfism, come on, its not fair!Oh, I am a troll, I am a troll...its not fair!I guess since they don't have a good explanation for how life evolved, any old one will do.

Some can you give us some more examples of "visible" mutations that ARE beneficial to tetrapods. Because we are going to need an awful lot of them to account for all of the incredibly complex life systems we see.All of the mutations you always talk about are hidden in a vast sea of complex networks inside the organism, which don't do anything at all, until they are fully formed systems. Hardly a good way to explain Darwinian evolution. More what you would expect from design than from natural selection.

Oh yea right coyote, this is really going to blow a hole in the creationists problems with evolution. Good luck with that.What is your definition of speciation coyote?

Actually Dr. A, I am basing my argument on the stupid things YOU say-so sorry if you are forced to live with your own mess.Remember how we are defining novel now...dwarfism, pituitary gland diseases, deformed bones, peeling skin...these are all part of YOUR theory.Feel free to list the ones you feel are NOT deleterious. I will be waiting.

Oh, and I forgot, you also have albinoism. This is how drosphilia believes light skin came into being. From a mutation which completely wipes out the bodies ability to produce melanin. And then you get another mutation which allows you to make a little melanin...The stories continue...I am waiting for your list of the good ones A. I know you have had time to prepare.