The Origin of Novelty

To the participants:I don't have time at the moment to read the 50 or so messages posted since I last checked in, but I'm concerned because I'm beginning to detect a certain amount of chippiness. Please keep this in check and keep the focus on the topic.I should be able to catch up later today or early tomorrow.

Adminnemooseus responded to you in Message 111. He kept an eye on the thread after that, but Dr A never responded to you again, and you only posted a very few more messages anyway.Dr A has been suspended a couple times recently, so I'm not sure what you mean by moderation not working, unless your preference is permanent suspension, which isn't going to happen for minor offenses. It takes true and dedicated persistence at flaunting the Forum Guidelines to get permanently suspended.

Please keep your focus on the topic and not the participants.

The evolutionist side suffers from the disadvantage of multiple voices leading to a confusion of arguments and phraseology. Different people come at the topic from different angles, some people's understanding of evolution is better than others, and all this does cause inconsistency and even contradictions, and it isn't always just the mere appearance of inconsistency or contradictions. Someone trying to make sense of the torrent of disparate explanations should not be blamed for drawing incorrect conclusions.The creationist side suffers from a credibility problem by giving evolutionists good cause to wonder whether this is really a serious discussion. It is not difficult to give the impression of working too hard at not understanding what is being explained. There *are* things that we do know.Both sides should be credited with keeping the discussion fairly civil. Thanks.

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.

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.

The effect of a new genetic element governs whether it is deleterious or beneficial, but it is often the case that the details of the mechanisms behind how it accomplishes that effect are not completely known, but this fact doesn't seem germane to issues of how novelty comes about. If you'd like to argue that this is germane then send me a PM.About how great you're doing, if your own opinion is all that matters to you then I can throw this thread into summation mode now, but if you'd like to consider taking things to a point where others might come to share that view then it would be best to keep it open.About moderation, as you've been informed many times, if you feel you're having problems with moderation then the place to take such issues is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color], but keep in mind that the moderation team is already well familiar with your history of joining discussions for only a short time before the complaining begins. You were doing so well, why don't you just continue discussing the topic?Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

Hi MindSpawn,You quote Bolder-dash saying, "Showing how novelty arises OBVIOUSLY requires you to demonstrate the mechanisms and how they work." I'm unsure whether he's referring to the mechanisms behind how novelty arises (in which case he misunderstood me) or behind how the novel genetic element carries out its effect. If the former then of course it is on-topic. If the latter then I don't see how it is germane to the topic. If you think it *is* germane to the topic then, as I suggested to Bolder-dash, send me a PM explaining why.Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

The topic is the origin of novelty from an evolutionary perspective (see Message 1). Creationist views on the origin of novelty are off-topic, including baramins.

The topic is the origin of novelty in an evolutionary context. Creationist views on how novelty might come about or anything else are off-topic. I don't mind if the digression continues for a couple more pages or so, but if it needs more discussion than that maybe someone could propose a new thread, or provide a link to an appropriate existing thread.

Any perspective, especially including creationist perspectives, are welcome, as long as they're about the topic. The topic is about how novelty could possibly originate in an evolutionary context. The OP takes a very skeptical stance on the possibility.I was only noting that how novelty might originate in a creationist or ID context is not the topic of this thread, but I have no problem with the digression as long as it doesn't persist for more than a couple or so more pages. If it needs to go on longer than that then someone might want to propose a new thread for it over at Proposed New Topics.

If the things wrong are not described then it isn't possible to become aware of them.Please, no replies in this thread.

Hi Bolder-dash,The thread for raising concerns about Forum Guidelines issues is Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color]. You've been informed of this many times. Messages in discussion threads like this one should focus on the topic. Persistent Forum Guidelines violations can result in temporary suspension, the duration dependent upon frequency. Again, this type of issue should be raised in the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread. I will answer this in this thread for you, but this is the last time.Offering additional evidence is not moving the goalposts. Changing criterion after the fact is moving the goalposts.Edited by Admin, : Minor correction: "changing the goalposts" => "moving the goalposts"Edited by Admin, : Fix links.

Hi Mindspawn,Please don't follow Bolder-dash's example. He is extremely reluctant to follow moderation. All his suspensions have been for that reason. All viewpoints are welcome here, and as you may have noticed, we never delete messages in part or in full. But the proper place to make complaints is the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread.But I will answer this complaint here: Looking at Bluegene's last post (Message 623), it seems very detailed and nothing at all like Bolder-dash's (paraphrasing), "There are at least 3 or 4 reasons you are wrong, all too boring to go into here...". I see no similarity at all. Taq replied to your response to Bluegenes, and you have not yet responded. It appears to me that you are all three in the middle of a detailed discussion.Moderation here is not biased, but neither is it ignorant. The moderators do tend to be well informed about what we know and what we don't know. So while moderators won't take sides, neither will they pretend ignorance when they are not. Moderators take an interest in preventing threads from diving too far down pointless ratholes of unsupported claims, trying to keep threads productive and moving constructively forward.Please, no replies in this thread.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

But you *are* following Bolder-dash's example. I asked that there be no replies in this thread. I provided a link to the thread where complaints should be posted (Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color]). Yet you replied in this thread. You are precisely following Bolder-dash's example. If you would like to be suspended then simply post one more message about moderation in this thread. Despite all his complaints about how biased moderation is here, Bolder-dash has never been suspended for his positions on any issue. He has only been suspended for posting his complaints to the wrong thread, and if you continue in the same vein then it will be how you will also get suspended. It has nothing to do with biased moderation. If you have a complaint about Bluegenes participation in this thread then please take it to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread. His last reply to you was Message 623, so please be specific, quoting the specific places where he is being evasive or mysterious, and explain why you didn't note anything about his being evasive or mysterious in your reply to him in Message 646, and why you haven't replied to Taq. Then this impression would be wrong. I only intervened after there was an extended exchange between Bolder-dash and Coyote that was drifting far off-topic in violation of varioius Forum Guidelines, see my Message 529 and follow the exchange forward. I eventually invited both you and Bolder-dash to PM me to explain why I'm incorrect about what I thought was off-topic, neither of you has done so. This is good advice for everyone. You might consider that your feelings of biased treatment actually derive from your own biases. That you've been unable to point to anything specific says that you're responding more to feelings than to facts.But what we have here is not an issue of creation/evolution. The only participants violating plain and simple Forum Guidelines having nothing to do with evolution or creationism in this thread are you and Bolder-dash. It isn't rocket science. Please stop posting off-topic in this thread. If you have legitimate complaints that you can support with actual quotes instead of vague complaints then take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color] thread. Any further off-topic posts to this thread will draw immediate suspensions, one day for you as a first offender after having been warned, more for Bolder-dash.