The Origin of Novelty

Yeah, maybe.But haven't you seen what actual creationists say?We can't really conclude that he's just pretending to be retarded.Maybe he is retarded. After all, if he was just a troll, then surely he'd have done it better?

He's deduced that -- correctly -- from what YOU all were saying about how evolution works. Drosophilla above seems to have recognized that point finally, though he takes it to some kind of absurd extreme. Nonsense, he's trying to point out that evolutionism makes that mistake. Unfortunately you all just come back missing the point and accuse him of it instead.

Can you quote someone saying that "novel and disease are synonymous"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. He took the line that some novel beneficial mutations aid fitness and that some novel neutral mutations can, with a change in environment, become benficial and inappropriately, purposely, basterdized it to novel mutations must all be benificial in some environment, even the deleterious ones.So then he devised a disease that could not possibly be beneficial to anyone, ever, anywhere, and insists evolution claims it to be beneficial somewhere. It's deliberate misrepresentation of the the positions actually made in this thread. This is lying.Look at what Drosophilla said.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nowhere in there does he indicate all bad "novel" things must also aid fitness. He relates just what we have been saying all along. Some novel mutations are deletarious. Some are not.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : Proofread first then post. Proofread first then post. Proofread first then post. OK. Got it.

Nope...the 'absurd extreme' is how it really does work - if by 'absurd extreme' you are dismissing my examples in my previous post to BD.I'm afraid you don't even have 'a glimmer'. Maybe BD doesn't either and his sentence that 'looked like a glimmer' might have been strung together words. However I'm prepared to be magnanimous - for now.

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.

You are trying to explain to a creationist what words mean according to the dictionary.I would encourage you in your endeavor, except that the creationist in question is FaithIf she could speak the English language, her whole world would fall apart.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

[Edited by me to remove invective.]Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

Here's a good example of mutation reinforced by selective breeding, which results in new genes:Should You Keep a Russian Red Fox as a Pet?

The only place a real tame Siberian pet fox is from is the breeding farm in Novosibirsk, Russia. Why, you ask? The foxes were originally used for a study on domestication, the role of stress in evolution, and other discoveries by Prof. D. K. Belyaev, the Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics of Animals, and the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Russia. During the past several decades of the study, the foxes were selectively bred by choosing the most tame foxes to breed. Over time colors changed, some ears started to flop, tails changed, and the foxes became like domesticated dogs. Studies have shown that these foxes now have different genes from wild foxes. The Russian study continues today and kits are available as pets. Money from the sales of the foxes is used to fund the study.

Got that? New genes?And new traits as well.This study alone blows creationists opposition to evolution out of the water quite handily. This is a clear case of speciation and all the quibbling over definitions and denials of the evidence won't change that.Sorry, game over.

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?

This is of course not true, as you yourself must know just from reading this thread.It would be nice for you guys if you could base your argument on something that wasn't a stupid lie, but I guess you've got to work with what you've got.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.