The Origin of Novelty

Was I being snarky? Oh I am sorry Coyote. I know you are always unfailingly polite on this forum, so I will return the favor.So ok, just go ahead and explain the method by which you know these adaptations to be caused by random mutations that occur accidentally all the time. You said its a great example of how random mutations can be beneficial. Ok go ahead, I will listen politely to your explanation of the mutations involved that lead to increase efficiency in uptake of oxygen.

No, you were posting garbage in response to my long and very detailed post.Your garbage response deserves only a snarky reply, which I will provide below. Stuff it.

You mean asking you to justify how your example of a clever adaptation to the environment was a result of random undirected mutations was garbage?You should have been able to make them claim uncontested?Ok, if you say so.

Everyone, I'm still here. Let's have a serious and sincere discussion.Bolderdash, in Message 521 Coyote was only trying to explain that the origin of the mutations and their mechanism of operation were not germane to his point, and then he went on to clarify his point at greater length. In order for the discussion to continue it needs to be explained either why the objections raised *were* actually germane, or there needs to be a response to the actual point. There's nothing wrong with personal expressions of incredulity, but unaccompanied by anything substantive they kind of bring discussion to a halt.

Mammary glands, three middle ear bones, developed neocortex, pelvis, radius and ulna in forearm, femurs, . . . I could go on and on. Whales and humans share way more features than whales and sharks. Why is that? How do you explain this?

Being that we have evidence for random mutations but no evidence for your intelligent teleological framework I say we go with the evidence.

Dude, sharks don't even have bones.

You mean the origin of the mutations and their mechanisms was not germane to the point of demonstrating their origin and their mechanisms?The whole point of the endeavor is to show the origin and mechanism of beneficial mutations!!This is not a discussion about whether or not complex, beneficial systems exists, you understand? Its a discussion about how and why.After 500 posts does it really need to be pointed out that this is a discussion about HOW complex systems formed, not did they form?If people have trouble keeping this distinction clear, who has the problem? Its not that sophisticated of a distinction.Is this why the evolutionists are performing so poorly defending their theory here-because they don't know the difference between a complex system existing, and understanding HOW a complex system exists?In light of that, their incompetence here makes more sense-thanks for pointing that out.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

You have just spent the entire length of the thread denying that beneficial mutations exist. Don't you think we need to agree that they exist before determining how they come about?

What in the world are you talking about? Not only did he not describe any mechanism for a mutation, he didn't even describe a mutation!He said people have adapted to their environments on numerous occasions in complex and unexplained ways! Well, isn't that news!

Like Taq, I thought you denied the existence of beneficial mutations. It that was correct and if after the latest evidence Taq presented that is still correct then you should explain why the evidence is insufficient for you.On the other hand, if you now accept the existence of beneficial mutations then the discussion can move on to how they originate.I'm not sure the mechanisms behind how a mutation performs its role is relevant, for two reasons. First, it is post facto to the origin event, and second, we don't understand the mechanisms behind how many genes work. If you and Taq focus on a specific new gene or allele where he thinks it arose through mutation you think it arose through design, if science has not yet uncovered the mechanisms of how it does its job then it is missing information for both sides, and it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the origin of novelty.

Are you here as a moderator or as a participant in this discussion?You seem to want to play the role of both, which I can understand why, because your side is being defeated so poorly. I think you are right, there is a difference between the players on this site, and the players on the Chinese football team. The Chinese football team doesn't usually have the referees telling the opposing side they are playing too hard, and need to slow down to give them a chance.You are not sure that the mechanisms behind a mutation are relevant, because its hard to find?And wouldn't you first have to even describe a mutation, to decide if its beneficial or not.For Darwinian evolution to be true, you need mutations that are !. 1.Random. 2. Sporadic in that they can occur anywhere. 3. Occur often enough to incur evolutionary change. 4. They need to not destroy the organisms in the process.I can understand if you feel its just too hard to come up with all four requirements (The Chinese footballers also feel that getting the ball into the opponents half should also count for something), but in Coyotes case you haven't met ANY of these requirements.But at least you wore your uniforms the same. Do you want credit for that? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

"Both alleles of the entire Mc1r gene (954 bp) were sequenced in the 69 mice in Fig. 1. Twenty-four single-nucleotide polymorphisms were observed: 15 were synonymous and 9 were nonsynonymous. Four of the nine amino acid polymorphisms were observed only in the dark mice from the Pinacate locality (Arg-18 Cys, Arg-109 Trp, Arg-160 Trp, and Gln-233 His). These four amino acid variants were present at high frequency (82%) among the Pinacate dark mice and were in complete linkage disequilibrium with one another."
Just a moment...Those are the mutations I am talking about. This is from the paper I cited very early on in this thread. If you want to discuss the specific chemistry behind the process of mutation I would be happy to go into that.

So you are in agreement that Coyote has not discussed anything at all that describes a mutation, little yet a mechanism behind one...I am glad we can finally agree on something.You won't mind if I display a small victorious wink if the only thing you can come up with for evidence that beneficial random mutations exist at all is dwarfism and grey mice will you?I guess if you are atheist, its probably enough to give you some comfort-something to hold on to.

I have been speaking about specific mutations. Why do you continue to ignore them? You are claiming that ALL of us are failing to present this evidence. Where did I ever claim that dwarfism is a beneficial mutation. Cite the post. I challenge you.You have once again invented claims and ignored the real facts. Why is that? Why do you continue to ignore the evidence?