The Origin of Novelty

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.

Then what would you prefer to call these mutations? You are just arguing semantics now.You need to deal with the facts concerning fur coloration in pocket mice. The facts are this. In black lava fields the allele for dark fur is very, very common. In the light brown desert the dark allele is non-existent. In crossing experiments, it is found that the dark allele is dominant over the light allele. So why do we have such a difference in allele distribution between the two environments? How do you explain this? But this isn't happening, and ALS and elephant man's disease continue to cause a decrease in fitness in our current environment. And we have seen what the environment does in the case of pocket mice. When will you deal with these facts?

Exactly. You have novel changes arising from mutations that are then selected for. We call this evolution.

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. Then you are a poor student. What differentiates them is their impact on fitness. Eyes evolved in vertebrates before bony skeletons, just so you know.

All three. Achondroplasia is caused by a mutation in the FFGR3 gene. It produces a novel phenotype in that the parents did not display the phenotype because they did not have the mutation. It is also a disease in that it causes health problems in people who carry the mutation, and in the case of parents who both have the allele it is lethal in zygotes carrying two achondroplasia alleles.

Then why isn't it dominant in the human population given that you only need one copy of allele to be a dwarf.

It really doesn't matter if dwarfism is a gain in function or not. The pocket mouse example IS a gain in function, and you are once again using red herrings to distract attention away from that. Gains in function can also be deleterious, such as in the case of the evolution of URF13 in corn:On the evolution of Irreducible ComplexityWhat is it that you hope to gain by pointing to dwarfism? We already agree that random mutations can cause disease. You can label the mutations as a loss or a gain in function if you want. What exactly is your point as it relates to dwarfism?

No one is claiming that we start with nothing. Again, do you even understand what evolution is?We start with an organism, which is not nothing. We also start with an organism with a nervous system which is again not nothing. We also have an organism with the ability to produce differentiated tissues which is again not nothing.So how does an eye evolve? That would by through the process of mutatoins filtered through natural selection. Eyes are diseases? Do you even think about what you write?

Does anyone else find it ironic that Balderdash the board game involves fooling other people into accepting the wrong definition for a word?

Bolder-dash claims that novel and disease are synonymous. We are saying that they are not synonymous.He is playing the equivocation game where he can claim that all mutations cause disease if he can show that one specific mutation causes disease. It is a rather childish way of trying to avoid the clear evidence of beneficial mutations giving rise to novel features that are not diseases, disformities, etc.

We have said it from the very beginning. We have always said that mutations are random with respect to fitness meaning that they can result in beneficial, neutral, or detrimental changes. The word novel itself means "not seen before". It has no connotation of being deleterious or beneficial. They also include beneficial and neutral changes, and we have said that from the very beginning. From the start I have been citing novel changes that are beneficial. Why is telling the truth considered to be evasive? Novel just means "not seen before". THAT'S IT!!!! Obviously, this can include deleterious, neutral, and beneficial changes. Pointing to deleterious novel functions in no way refutes the existence of beneficial novel changes. It appears that you are making the very same mistake that Bolder-dash is. I think you are reading his posts correctly, but are unable to see why his point is wrong. The authors of the paper found the mutations responsible for the novel function, and they demonstrated that the mutations arose recently. They did this by showing a lack of variation in the allele compared to the much higher sequence variance in the light colored allele. This means that the dark allele went through a recent selecton event and has not had time to build up neutral mutations. These are not "allelic possibilities". They are mutations.

We have cited examples of just that, the pocket mouse example being one. How is dark fur deleterious to the mice living in the black lava fields? Why do you exclude dark fur from this list?

Dark fur in pocket mice.We could also cite the DNA differences between humans and chimps which contain mutations that are beneficial to one of those species. Do you really think that all of those differences cause both chimps and humans to be a diseased form of their common ancestor? Evidence please. You are just making stuff up now.

How do you know that it is within the kind or baramin if you are have not given us the criteria for determining baramins and kinds? So are you saying that the common ancestor of chimps and humans had all of the DNA variation found in a combined chimp and human genome?

Is macroevolution the production of a new kind or baramin? How do you determine if macroevolution has occurred, according to your criteria? Again, we are right back to the pocket mouse example. The dark fur was demonstrated to be produced by new mutations, not a reduction in genetic diversity. I have also started a new topic dealing with antibiotic resistance that, once promoted, would be a great place for you to further discuss these topics. Of course, I plan to participate in your thread as well. How does the process of mutation limit evolution? 200,000 shared ERV's say otherwise. We do share a common ancestor, so you need to fit this into your model.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.