The Origin of Novelty

quote:

---

I am confused by what this has to do with explaining how a new novel feature arises in populations

---

Well, you're right that you are confused. Reading my posts in context might help you understand better.

quote:

---

Oh really?

---

Yes, really. If you imply that it's silly to even think that you had the augment you claimed to have then it's pretty clear that you didn't have an argument.

quote:

---

Well then just present your evidence of where any part of DNA would favor evolution over 600 million years over creation and some minor evolution over 6500 years. I have been asking this quite a few times in this thread, and not even a weak attempt to answer this. If this thread is full of those who intelligently represent evolution, then surely you guys can come up with SOME evidence in the DNA itself, where it looks like a 600 million year process of being evolved. You see my faith is 100% sure on creationsim, but I acknowledge that empirically the evidence is currently about 50/50 for both views. I don't pretend that biological evidence currently strongly favors creationism and don't feel obliged to show that

---

I've already given you one. There is no evidence of baramins in the genome. That is actually a very strong point.But here's another one. How about the cytochrome-C sequence. Cytochrome-C is a protein found in all eukaryotes and is strongly conserved. There are variations, though, and the pattern of these variations are strongly consistent with common ancestry of eukaryotes (i.e. the differences are as we would predict based on taking the pattern of branches proposed by common ancestry.). There's no evidence that the differences are functional (human cytochrome-C seems to work just fine in yeast) and there's no real reason to expect created baramins to show the same pattern (they could all start with the same or with versions too different to fit the pattern).

quote:

---

ok you are referring to radiometric dating now, which isn't appropriate to this thread. I can explain so-called old fossils. They are young. Radiometric dating has flaws.

---

In fact I am referring to multiple dating methods (not all radiometric) since i only need to find life older than 6500 years - and there's no good reason to think that radiometric methods are nearly bad enough for your view to be a real possibility.So again, another strong point against you.

quote:

---

I've already explained the absence of clear genetic gaps, I believe there are nearly always clear genetic gaps. But grey areas are possible under the baramin view and would still fit into creationism, but hoping you can actually point out an example of a grey area.

---

Until you can actually show these gaps there's really no reason to think that they are there. Nobody else seems to be able to find them.

quote:

---

Evolution shows a LACK of significant transitional fossils. Its a weakness, not a strength of evolution.

---

No, that's not true. The "lack" of transitional fossils is a shortage of fossils indicating species-level transitions. There are plenty of transitional fossils at higher taxonomic levels.

quote:

---

The clear nested hierarchies are once again, small changes from a common ancestor of the same era. This points to baramins.

---

That's impossible. It points to common ancestry. Baramins can't predict a nested hierarchy beyond the boundaries of each baramin. Therefore the presence of nested hierarchies that include multiple baramins is evidence against them.

quote:

---

The so-called transitional fossils between the main animal kingdoms and major phyla , which is the extreme claim of evolution, is lacking.

---

I.e. we don't have many fossils of small soft-bodied creatures from the Cambrian. But we don't need to look at those to refute your view. The fossils documenting the transition from the reptilian to mammalian jaw structure, for instance, are a clear evidence against your baramins.

quote:

---

I've seen nothing significant, every point of yours I've answered clearly and logically. If there is anything I've missed, kindly point it out and I will deal with it again.

---

I don't see how you can possibly believe this.

quote:

---

Do you realize this is kindergarten debating. My response that I have already made to this point you are making repeatedly is that neither does evolution have any evidence of 600 million years as opposed to 6500 years of evolving evidenced in the genome. So the same finger is pointing back at you.

---

If the only way that you can answer my point is to resort to "kindergarten debating" then maybe it's because it's a good point. So, the lack of clear boundaries in the genomes clearly points to common descent over baramins.

quote:

---

Thanks for posting this, could you kindly give me a link so that I can look into your claims, thanks.

---

Here is one site discussing it, with some sequence data.

quote:

---

Even if you are right about radiometric dating and other dating methods, which you are not, even so timeframes are not a good enough reason to favor evolution over baramins.

---

But, of course, it IS a strong point against all those baramins being created 6500 years ago.
Which is a part of your hypothesis.

quote:

---

A chimp and human match protein coding by only 29%. http://www.genome.gov/15515096

---

Only 29% of proteins are IDENTICAL in sequence. Small neutral variations in protein sequence would be perfectly compatible with two species being in the same baramin.

quote:

---

So humans and chimps are obviously not baramins, with their small 29% match

---

That seems a pretty big match when only one small mutation anywhere on a gene is needed to change the sequence. And the change may well have no effect at all.So I'm still looking for a clear genetic gap that would indicate the existence of baramins. Mere differences won't do. Is there not one group of mammals that is obviously a separate creation from the rest ?

quote:

---

LOL!! Do some exceptions in sexual identity (eg hermaphrodites) mean there is no such thing as male and female? Do some possible theoretical grey areas in defining baramins necessarily mean there are no baramins?

---

We're not talking about theoretical grey areas or rare exceptions. We're talking about the fact that the genome data shows NO clear examples of baramins at all.

quote:

---

That line of reasoning is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, but the line of reasoning is stupid, I am expecting you to never back down on this point, but your reasoning lacks any validity whatsoever).

---

Then its good for me that that line of reasoning comes from you, and not from me.

quote:

---

Lol, that list is a perfect illustration of design groupings. Similar organisms with similar habits/phenotypes/genotypes will require similar breathing abilities. To me its a perfect example of design similarities, just as you may interpret the evidence as an example of evolved similarities. There is nothing there that even vaguely contradicts the similarities you would expect a designer to place in similar organisms.

---

Except for the fact that the pattern of the differences is exactly what we would expect given common descent and if all you can offer is unlikely ad hoc alternatives, then I'm afraid it stands as evidence.

quote:

---

There would need to be about 2000 mutations per generation to even get to a half percent variation in base pairs over 6500 years. Not even the most excessive estimations of mutation rates would predict that type of variation per generation. So my 99.5% is a pretty safe definition of a baramin if it so clearly separates two organisms famous for their similarity.

---

Only if you assume a relatively short timespan. And given longer the difference would increase. This is not a good line of evidence, especially given the weight of evidence against your 6500 years. And it certainly isn't the clear distinction that would signal special creation.

quote:

---

The fact that there are only at most about 30 point mutations per generation , and yet the difference in base pairs between the chimp and human is about 4% (120 million base pair differences) means that there needs to be about 2 million generations since our common ancestor. At a conservative breeding generation of 10 years , this means that there needs to be 20 MILLION years since the common ancestor split. (evolutionists claim about 6 million years

---

You forget that differences accumulate in both lineages, halving the time. And you also forget that point mutations are not the only mutations - insertions and deletions can affect multiple bases with a single mutation, and they are not that uncommon.

quote:

---

Mere differences? They certainly are good enough to determine baramins and are a clear genetic gap, why are you unsatisfied with that measurement?

---

If the differences are mostly small and non-functional it's hardly the sort of gap we would expect to see between baramins. That's why counting differences without any further analysis is hopelessly inadequate.

quote:

---

Its pretty easily defined. Humans are one baramin. The genus canis is another baramin. The genus felidae is another baramin. (Obviously only where the genomes in that genus are closely matching, its possible taxonomists have wrongly categorized some species within a genus). Genomes have to be completely sequenced and completely compared across base pairs like the chimpanzee and human , before we can make any accurate conclusions.

---

The point is not to define some arbitrary count of differences. The point is to find the clear differences that point to the existence of baramins. I'm still waiting to see even one example.

quote:

---

You make bold statements , but in what manner is the intelligent design view of cytochrome c sequences more unlikely than the common descent view. Kindly enlighten me with some evidence for your point please.

---

I've already done so. The pattern fits the expectations of evolution, while the baramin hypothesis produces no such expectations.

quote:

---

The amazing thing about these sequences is that although many of these organisms have supposedly evolved separately for over 300 million years, they ALL have a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at position 18, a proline at position 30 and a methionine at position 80. This positively SCREAMS intelligent design , the concept of all these completely different organisms maintaining these exact positions over 300 million years of evolving compared to 6500 years of evolving is ridiculous and I will be using this study as evidence for baramins from now on.

---

Cytochrome C is useful for these studies precisely because it is highly conserved. If these particular elements are essential to the function then of course they will be retained. If they are not then, what reason would the hypothetical designer have to make them the same while others vary ?

quote:

---

You say this is not a good line of evidence. I agree with you because I was not presenting this as evidence. I was explaining the reasoning why a 99.5 percent similarity would be a logical test for baramins according to the 6500 year view.

---

In other words you failed to give me what I asked for.

quote:

---

If you look at my figures, I definitely included the thinking that differences accumulate in both lineages. The figure without taking into account the two lineages would be 40 million. If you checked my math you would have seen I used the figure 20 million years instead of 40 million years to take the mutations in both lineages into account.

---

OK

quote:

---

Regarding current rates of multiple base mutations and point mutations, have you got any backing for the average ~100 plus base point differences that would have had to accumulate over EVERY generation over the last 600 000 generations over the last 6 million years?

---

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I dare say that you can find details in the papers estimating the divergence time.

quote:

---

I've done this, I don't know what more you want

---

Essentially a "mammalian" baramin that falls well outside the nested tree of taxonomy and genetics - or even just one if the two. If the baramin hypothesis were true we'd expect to see rather a lot. So why don't we see even one?

quote:

---

LOL - sweeping statements are not evidence.

---

You've been shown evidence. I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer.

quote:

---

This isnt just highly conserved, this is exactly conserved over 300 million years... interesting.

---

Which is entirely possible if any change would cause a serious problem.

quote:

---

When relating nested trees to fossils unfortunately there is a lack of supporting evidence.

---

No, theres plenty of evidence for the trees based on morphology.

quote:

---

Nested trees can be obvious when genetically based on recent species of which DNA is available

---

Yes, and this is a severe problem for your hypothesis. You see, you should see a separate tree for each baramin, not one incorporating all of them,

quote:

---

. Other than this, there is rarely any examples of a correctly dated sequence of fossils. ie there should be a series of transitional fossils showing slight phenotype changes, but also showing radiometric dating in the same sequence. Without this dating confirmation, nested hierarchies are mental projections based on ordering extinct species into time sequences that do not necessarily exist. IT is easy to put a cat fossil next to a wildcat fossil, next to a cheetah fossil next to a tiger fossil and show how cats grew in size over time. But if all the fossils were concurrent then you would be wasting your time on a fantasy ordering, all those species could have been simultaneously alive. So you require dated sequences to add some empirical value to your sequence.

---

Making unreasonable demands of the fossil record hardly changes the fact that what it does tell us is strongly consistent with common ancestry, and not with your hypothesis.

quote:

---

And I can confidently predict that any dated sequence of transitional fossils will show rapid evolution from a baramin, with no general transitional sequences ever found between the kingdoms, or between the major phyla.

---

By which you mean that baramins are to be identified with kingdoms and phyla... Pretty impressive evolution in 6500 years.

quote:

---

Morphology is not clear cut. ie if eagles and falcons were extinct and an eagle fossil is found under a falcon fossil, this does not mean that the eagle evolved from the falcon. An evolutionist, always looking for transitional fossils, would too easily make that logic jump between two separate fossils based on their closely matching morphology. they could so easily be wrong, they could just as easily be looking at two separate species rather than a sequence. Taxonomists have to work with what they have, and it takes too many assumptions to be an exact science.

---

This is just pointless nit-picking. I'm not claiming to prove detailed evolutionary relationships by morphology. I'm claiming that the overall pattern of a nested tree is what we should expect if common ancestry is true, and not if your hypothesis were true.

quote:

---

??You do see a separate tree for each baramin.

---

No, you don't

quote:

---

Genome sequencing supports the baramin concept, just look at the similarities among the genotypes of dogs/wolves. And yet the vast differences between chimpanzees/humans. The tree relating to dogs and wolves shows a neat progression, radiating out from specific areas across the globe. The so-called chimpanzee/human tree shows no such relationship, they are unique species, separate baramins. with far too many genetic differences (120 million base pairs) to have occurred in their so-called 6 million years of divergence from each other. Unless you can show how mammals do actually conserve 100 base pair changes per generation.

---

One minor anomaly doesn't refute or overrule a strong overall pattern. And if that's the best you can offer it's strong evidence AGAINST your position.

quote:

---

In the eyes of evolutionists there is a sequence. Its just very funny that taxonomists could be ordering a set of fish into an elaborate order when they could have all been swimming around at the same time. The fact that you feel you don't need a date sequence is illogical. Of course you need a date sequence, its a logical demand, not unreasonable at all. I don't know on what grounds you feel taxonomists are infallible, it is not an exact science.

---

As is said above problems in working out the details don't change the fact of the overall pattern.

quote:

---

Which shows you completely misunderstand my position. I would appreciate it if you tried a little harder. Maybe if you didn't post so quickly you would understand what I mean.

---

Maybe if you thought more about your arguments you wouldn't be presenting evidence AGAINST your position. If you need to go to the Kingdom or Phylum level to claim an absence of transitional fossils then you imply that there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. Since, in your view, transitional fossils aren't even expected to exist outside of baramins that's a big problem for you - unless you identify the baramins with phyla and kingdoms. It's the only way to get that argument to be anything more than a silly joke.So, in fact I understood what you were saying better than you did! Pretty good for someone who posts so quickly.

quote:

---

You say that evolution should expect an overall pattern of a nested tree, but there is no overall pattern of a nested tree, that is the fault of your reasoning. The tree is assumed. Both evolution and baraminology would show recent genome traced nested trees, this is observed.

---

This is obviously false for the morphological tree. It is also false for the genetic tree. The genetic data lets us infer relationships between extant species and this, too, points to a nested tree. This is NOT expected by baraminology.

quote:

---

Now you are referring to the canines as an anomaly.

---

Actually I was referring to the divergence between humans and chimpanzees as a possible anomaly. Since that's the one you claimed to be contrary to common ancestry.

quote:

---

If the only proof of an overall pattern is a fallible process, you are left with nothing. Zero. Your whole evidence for evolution is based on this observable pattern , yet you present no evidence for the pattern. Without this so-called pattern you keep referring to, all we have is recent nested hierachies showing minor evolutionary changes, pointing exactly to baramins.

---

Why don't you support your claim? I've given an example of mine. Show to me that the evidence points only to recent nested hierarchies.

quote:

---

You are perfectly correct, I do believe there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. however this is no problem at all for me because I believe these transitional fossils exist within each baramin (these are recently evolved new species of original baramins).

---

Well you are quite right that you don't find contrary evidence to be a problem - because you feel that you can blow it off with ad hoc assumptions. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the existence of numerous transitional fossils is a problem for your hypothesis, because you have no adequate explanation for it.

quote:

---

All relationships between extant species reflected in the genetic data points to and is expected by baraminology. You would see closely related nested hierarchies from within baramins (eg human racegroups, genus canis, genus felidae) nearly every modern organism is part of a recent nested hierarchy. Then you would see vast gulfs of genetic differences (eg chimp/human differences of 120 million base pairs) between baramins of similar phenotype. This is what is observed.

---

Well, as lies go, that's a whopper! You know perfectly well that the only argument about chimps and humans is over estimates of divergence time and there isn't any uncrossable bridge there.So no, we DON'T see these "vast gulfs of genetic differences". Not at all.

quote:

---

I don't recall you giving me any example of evidence for long term hierarchies. If you could kindly back up your claims with links/studies then we could gain ground in the discussion instead of repeating ourselves.

---

Have you forgotten the cytochrome C example already ?

quote:

---

Remember I am not claiming that baraminology is the better empirical view, I believe observations currently fit in with both views. MY argument is against evolutionist assumptions that your view is better, any evidence to show that your view is better than baraminology would be greatly appreciated. It is only because of your overconfidence in the evidence for your position that more evidence is actually required of you. I say both views fit in with observations and neither view can currently contradict the other.

---

The idea that the evidence COULD "equally" support the two positions is a bit odd. If we had the genetic evidence you claimed baraminolgy would win, easily. The fact that the data is nothing like that and we can't find one single clear example of a baramin equally goes against baraminology.We have other evidence, such as transitional fossils which are completely unexpected if baraminology is true, too.So you've been given the evidence, and it looks very much as if that was not what you wanted at all.

quote:

---

You keep making big claims without giving me your links/studies to prove your position. Which particular group of transitional fossils is a problem for my hypothesis? Give me an example so we can see how it contradicts the baramin view.

---

Actually it wasn't a particular group it's ALL of them considered together. Although I have pointed out the fossils illustrating the evolution of the mammalian jaw as a particularly awkward example for you.

quote:

---

When I say vast differences, I am referring to 120 million base pairs differences, and 83% difference in protein production between humans/chimps.

---

Which are far too small to suggest anything other than - in evolutionary terms - a very close relationship.

quote:

---

You think you made a point with that example? The claim that a wide range of organisms have retained an exact sequence over 300 million years without mutations or evolving, is ridiculous. The evidence points to recent intelligent design, but I already said that, and we are repeating ourselves.

---

I know that I did. Again the differences fall into a nested tree, strongly consistent with evolution. Why is that ? Coincidence ?You haven't even come up with any reason WHY an intelligent designer would keep arbitrary elements of the sequence constant and that would be necessary to even have a plausible alternative, let alone for your claim to be true.

quote:

---

What evidence? The Cytochrome example points to intelligent design

---

Yet another obvious falsehood.

quote:

---

and I have noted that your arguments are repetitive and lack supporting evidence. You repeat the same statements yet refuse to back them up.

---

If I have winning arguments - and I do - why should I give up on them ?

quote:

---

The complete dearth of any decent arguments or evidence against baraminology speaks volumes. Where's the hundreds of links I was expecting that would easily disprove baraminology? Repeating weak points adds no strength to your position.

---

Well given the fact that we have quite a number of strong arguments against baraminology the problem would seem to be with you/

quote:

---

Could you kindly give me a link regarding the evolution of the mammalian jaw. I would like to see why you say that these fossils are a particularly awkward example for me.

---

THe reason why it is particularly awkward is that not only is it a transition that clearly crosses baramins, but that it's rather odd to have intermediary stages for such an unusual transition - the "twin jointed jaw" is a perfect transition for moving from one joint to another, something that some argued was impossible. Until the fossils showed otherwise. Wikipedia's writeupHere's Steven Jay Gould's discussion as a bonus (bitmapped pdf)
An Earful of JawEdited by PaulK, : Fixed URL

I am sorry that you are unable to follow a conversation.

quote:

---

An intelligent designer would design the same section in the same manner in all organisms that need that section. Its pretty obvious.

---

And if it NEEDED to be the same then evolution would keep it the same. So, you need a different reason.

quote:

---

Ever thought this so-called "transition" is a mole-like animal? Some moles have lower air-borne hearing ability than both reptiles and mammals, due to their survival being based on ground based hearing (ground vibrations). Thus they are not a transition, their hearing is unique, and designed for the ground. The middle ear is attached to the lower jaw to emphasize vibrations. Thus they have both the independent ossicles of the mammal and also the attachment of the large ossicle to the jawbone.

---

Still pretty dodgy. For a start Morganucodon, one of the species involved seems to have been more like a modern shrew. Secondly we have fossils indicating different parts of the transition.

quote:

---

To see this as a transition would deny the fact the hearing is worse than the reptile , there is no hearing progression occurring here at all, but this is a unique organism with unique abilities. Everything else about the anatomy of the so-called transitional Morganucodon is consistent with the behaviour and anatomy of moles, it can't be transitionary unless reptiles underwent a mole phase before evolving into mammals.

---

"a unique organism with unique abilities" ? I suggest that you really need to read the sources rather than inventing excuses to dismiss the evidence all the time. You might have read this: And here's the link again:
Wikipedia's writeupAnd that's what we'd expect for a transitional feature - but not at all unique.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I am only just beginning to realize that a lot of you are arguing from the illogical fallacy of mutual exclusivity.

---

I would say that being evidence for intelligent design over evolution is mutually exclusive with being evidence for evolution over intelligent design, wouldn't you ?But if you would like to agree with me that the conserved elements aren't evidence either way then we will have made progress.

quote:

---

ie you possibly think that because evolution has a good and fitting explanation for something observed in the genome, then ID cannot also have a good and fitting explanation.

---

Fortunately I don't make that assumption. I rely on the fact that ID does NOT have a good and fitting explanation for the evidence.

quote:

---

Well at the moment both ID and evolution have well-fitting responses to whatever is seen in the genome. I'm not pretending otherwise. Its evolutionists that claim the empirical advantage, therefore you must show it, or stop claiming any advantage any more. This genetic similarity between similar organisms (eg human/ape) fits the concept of long term nested hierarchy and also fits the view that they are designed similarly, but not exactly the same.

---

Unfortunately the ID explanation does not fit that well, we've discussed, at length, the pattern of similarities forming a nested tree, which ID does not predict. We've discussed the absence of clear baramins which your view does not predict. And we could discuss other things too. So evolution really does have an empirical advantage.

quote:

---

I find it amusing that the shrew that they picture in wikipedia also looks like a mole. So it resembles a mole, has hearing like some modern moles, but really is a so-called "transitional fossil" between reptiles and mammals.

---

I think that has a lot to do with your own tendency to fantasise, and to confuse your fantasies with reality.

quote:

---

Conserved elements over millions of years favors the ID view.

---

For that to be true it must be the case that evolution is less likely to conserve them than the assumed Designer. If they are necessary, evolution would be guaranteed to preserve them.So with that in mind, please provide the reasoning to support your claim.

quote:

---

Taq has been repetitive that an ID designer wouldn't design in groupings, Its obvious and observed that is what intelligent designers actually do. Others are saying there are exceptions like the penguin, bat, etc that do not conform to groupings and this somehow contradicts ID. Its obvious and observed that intelligent designers actually do make crossover products between their groupings as well as designing in groupings.

---

Wrong, there are two different arguments that are NOT contradictory. First is the argument that designers do not design the sort of "groups" we see in life. Second is the argument that your groups don't even make sense - an ostrich is not designed to fly, so any group of creatures designed to fly can't include an ostrich. Yet an ostrich is undoubtedly a bird.

quote:

---

Boring strawman argument.
Repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread. No clear example of any "nested tree" has been given which in any manner that contradicts the ID position. So your repetitive "nested tree" example is based on the louder more numerous kids shouting down the others in the nursery playground, unfortunately you have supplied no studies on intelligent designers that show that they do not design products in groupings. You have showed no examples of particular nested trees. (someone mentioned the reptilian mole - except the mole isn't even reptilian).

---

In other words, you aren't interested in the evidence, only in pretending that it supports you.