The Origin of Novelty

You wouldn't think that nature has any specific requirements for where on the body the eye has to form, would you? FlatfishNature don't care where the eye ends up, yo! The only key is that in the environment that the creature lives in the mutation allows it to survive long enough to pass on its genetic code. Flatfish eyes are assymetrical, which is not similar to any other creature. Yet because the eyes work well in the environment the flatfish finds itself in, the selective pressure does not remove this adaptation from the genetic pool.Now, also bear in mind that the eyespots were most likely forming in the pre-cambrian, far before there were any real skeletal structures to speak of. It makes sense that those eyes that moved toward the optimum area of the body as body plans developed (Most cases this is symmetrical on the head of the animal)were better able to function within the environment that they found themselves in. Once evolution has set something, it is rare to see it move in reverse, as seen with the issues that the mammalian eye has (i.e.-blind spot in humans, requiring an addition of tapetum for cats to see in the dark)Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : to include the word "tapetum"

We've done this before,but let's do it again. I don't suppose that Boulder-dash will understand it, but by now that's hardly the point. Boulder-dash won't understand anything(1) Reproduction occurs, and offspring are quite, though not exactly, like their parents.(2) There are things that make the offspring not exactly like their parents (as referred to in the previous point). These include mutation, recombination, and lateral gene transfer.(3) These changes may make the resulting organism better, worse, or the same, at reproducing within the environment it finds itself in.(4) There are factors that influence whether these changes will spread through the gene pool, namely natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift. The effect of these factors will be to (statistically) favor those variations that favor reproduction over those that do not.---As an obvious corollary of these facts, the cumulative effect of this is that natural selection will favor and accumulate those variations which adapt an organism to its environment. So of course mutations can continue to accumulate in a line of descent until they are clearly distinct from the ancestral population; and for this reason lines of descent can branch to fill different environmental niches.---I do not of course expect Boulder-dash to understand any of this.

What I find scary is you think dwarfism is a quite normal feature in the population. And you think these are quite normal features in the population as well? What planet are you from again?

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

If this is what you are getting from what Taq and the big bird have said then your intellectual deficiencies are far worse than we'd imagined. You might want to go back and re-read their messages with an effort toward more comprehension.

Actually, I wonder if that's evidence that he's a deliberate troll.It doesn't really matter to me either way.

So let me understand this. Since we already know that having slightly longer or shorter arms than your parents is well within the standard bell curve in the population and is considered normal, you say having bones that do not grow at all or having only one arm instead of two is also within normal parameters for this species.You apparently do not understand what "normal" means. Another cognitive issue for you.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Really. We would all be interested in what kind of environment you think would give this kind of terrible deleterious feature any kind of reproductive advantege. Some environment on this planet, if you will.Before you try and back out citing a fall guy for this wierd scenario, I have looked back at all the messages and this grisly fantacy is wholly out of your own ass head. So, please, enlighten us with how, on this planet, such a feature could increase fitness.

Of course he's a troll.For God sake, Chimp beards, dwarfs ......

I am now at least following what Bolder is trying to do and it's amazing how everybody else here misses it. You keep accusing him of what he's pointing out in what YOU all are saying. He's not trying to evade something, he's trying to make a point about what evolution considers to be "novel," which is a definition some of YOU here supplied. Interesting to see how the evolutionist framework just chews to bits anything attempted by an opponent and "wins" by missing the point.Well, I'm now going to get off this thread and try to get a new one going because my argument IS interfering with his as long as it continues here.

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.

But, haven't you noticed? We are all saying: "No, we're not saying that at all", and B'd is saying that we're saying it.Now, is it this not clear? If I say 2 + 2 = 4, and B-d says: "No, actually, Dr A's ideology is that 2 + 2 = 5", then who should you believe about my opinions. Me or him? How do you determine what I believe? Surely if you're trying to figure out what I believe you should listen to my statements about what I believe rather than what B-d claims that I believe.To take an obvious example, suppose I say: "I am a Democrat!" And then B-d tells you that I am in fact a Republican. So, who are you going to believe, him or me?I get the last word about what I think.

Some of you are NOW saying that but originally the discussion startded with the insistence that "novel" includes disease. But it was the evolutionists on the thread that insisted that "novel" includes "deleterious" which seemed to me to be an evasive move but he didn't take it that way. Now that some of you are back to accepting that deleterious means deleterious it's easy enough to point out that mutations often produce deleterious effects, it doesn't take all the work you think he's going to for such a purpose.But it may be that I'm still missing what he's trying to get at.I myself would argue that the supposed beneficial mutations you pointed to are not mutations at all but allelic possibilities that came to dominate the phenotype under selection pressure, but I stayed out of that discussion because Bolder had something else he was trying to do with it, and I'm not getting into it now either although I'm stating it. I'm trying to put together something from this thread that could be used to start a new thread and it's not easy.

Oh...WOW! A tiny glimmer after all this time! Yes what you say above IS essentially correct. That is how Natural Selection works on mutations.You, yourself raised albinism in Africans as a deleterious mutation and scoffed how it could be a novel function. Well here is the answer:It is known that albino individuals can arise today in two dark-skinned African parents (and the past would have been no different). In Africa under that blistering sun you are quite correct that this 'deleterious' mutation is devastating to albino skin. With modern healthcare in some of the better-off African countries the poor individual just might survive - but certainly in our distant past, such a 'novel' features would indeed be deadly. The individual would perish (ruthlessly culled by natural selection which in this case is the power of the sun) and fail to pass on his 'novel' gene pool. That's why Africans are still dark-skinned to this day.And for you with your lack of much of the basic sciences, this is the end of the story. It's not though - it's the beginning. Our ancestors didn't stay in Africa, - they moved out and colonised huge areas - including places like Europe. Now Europe was (and still is) much cooler with a weaker sun in the northern latitude. Now Natural Selection turns savage on the black skin, Why? Because black skin is fitted to prevent deep UV penetration from an African sun. This means that much less UV rays get into black skin from northern climates.The connection? Well UV light is needed to manufacture vitamin D in our skin for use in the body. Deficiency of vitamin D causes a range of severe illnesses from Rickets, to a range of cancers and muscle wasting illnesses, possibly diabetes and even schizophrenia. All of a sudden the dark skin is disadvantaged by the fact the sun in northern climes could no longer provide enough UV light to penetrate the dark skin which after all has the function to eliminate most UV light in the African environment.Now the rare albino mutations can massively profit. Their blond skin CAN take the weak UV light and they prosper at the expense of the majority dark skin. Their genes survive and pass on and become 'fixed' in the gene pool - an expression meaning that (in this case) the white skinned individuals in Europe would become the norm. Black people in northern climes today benefit by modern medicine/diet/healthcare. Vitamins supplements are readily available as is remedial medical treatment for illnesses — but none of that was around for our ancestors in the last Ice Age and before!THIS is exactly how natural selection works. There are certainly fatal mutations that would NEVER be beneficial - serious congenital abnormalities in a foetus as a result of mutations to a major embryonic developing system for example. But those cases are irrelevant - because they die early and contribute nothing to evolution's hand of change.For those that do survive initially and show 'novel' features/variation - the question then becomes "Is this novel feature a detriment or an advantage in the ecosystem WHERE THIS INDIVIDUAL IS MAKING ITS LIVING? Because that is what counts — ultimately — ‘will the environmental factors at play in this habitat allow this individual to survive to breed and pass on its genes’? And the short phrase for that last sentence is 'Natural Selection'.There are (for those individuals that survive been born) environments that are positive for almost any affliction.Dwarfism does convey advantages in the right environment. Dwarfism in humans means less heat loss as the body is compact - an advantage in extreme cold climates - Neanderthaals were stocky and compact, and lived in Ice Age Europe! Dwarfs also have a greater muscle to body length size (torque) which means they can be significantly stronger than non-dwarfs — I’m sure how you can figure out that that can be an advantage!Sickle cell anaemia which lowers oxygen-carrying in red blood cells and robbing the sufferer of oxygen carrying capacity (and which on the face of it would seem utterly deleterious) has the benefit of making its suffers more resistant to malaria (still the world's biggest microbial killer). And, surprise, surprise - sickle cell anaemia is far more common in tropical or sub-tropical environments (where Natural Selection favours the 'survival' of the sickle cell allele).This isn't rocket science boulder dash - it really is quite simple and beautifully elegant. That it took someone like Darwin to figure it out as late as the 1850's shows what paralysing grip religion had on men’s minds (including the scientists of the day).Who knows how much further we could now be ahead if we'd cast off that mythical Bronze Age savagery much sooner!P.S: Hang on to the glimmer from the top of this post - I think you may actually be beginning to see how it may come together....you may not like it ...but you might be beginning the journey....take a dip - the water may be cold - but oh so refreshing!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : typo

Which is correct. "Novel" features or functions may indeed be disease, but not in every case.The pebble cannot seem to fathom that not all "novel" things are good things. Some "novel" things are bad things.Since some novel things are good and can aid fitness, the pebble has now gone to the extreme of saying all bad "novel" things must also aid fitness.He cannot see the difference between good and bad.Actually, he can see the difference but cannot admit so here since that would be counter to his trolling.