The Origin of Novelty

You cannot. Your personal ignorance is not a form of knowledge. Well, they obviously did. Very briefly. They looked at Lucy, and said to themselves: "Clearly not a gibbon". They also didn't do a point-by-point comparison with a tyrannosaurus. The people doing this actually know some stuff about primates, unlike you, Mr. "A male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human".But if you think that they have failed, then it is open to you to learn something about primates and make your case. Until then, your total ignorance of primates does not constitute an argument.

In case you have never seen one, here is a gibbon skeleton: And here is Lucy: I await your expert analysis of all the similarities.

I already compared them. I already showed you that Lucy's pelvis is much more human-like than it is gibbon-like.Why do you ignore the evidence?

Don't forget the human pelvis!! Even without looking that the femur q-angle, I think the similarities are quite obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by creationism.

And for good measure, a nice close up of a replica of a siamang's pelvis; Oh look, it's long and narrow, as in basal apes. What a shocker. Aargh. I've had all I can take for one day. Maana.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Oh, silly me. Obviously an all-wise Creator wouldn't make a species that lived in trees and also had wings. That would be stupid. They'd get caught in the branches, as I'd know if only I was as smart as a god made in your image.

Lol, that was a good one! Yeah yeah I admit birds live in trees, but even so , they don't swing and jump from branch to branch. This would make wings a little inconvenient. Why then produce apes if flying birds can fill all the apes ecological niches? This is because flying birds do not fill all the apes ecological niches. And so apes have their use, and a good design for it, and birds have their use, and a good design for it.

I already admitted the pelvis is similar. I just do not agree that one feature, bipedal motion, is enough to state the organism is a transitional. For that to be acceptable, you will need to show a series of transitional , various species, that are changing over time from a slim pelvis to the very wide pelvis, and then from the very wide pelvis, to a larger brain capacity. One unique species proves nothing without a sequence of gradual change, which has been my requirement all along. It may not be your requirement, but its definitely a logical requirement, unless you wish to base the entire theory of evolution on what is a unique species with one major matching feature with humans.(the other so-called matching features of Lucy that I looked at, match with non-human apes too, there is nothing uniquely human about those matching claims)So you have two species with a matching feature, kinda like the coral with a matching DNA sequence with a human. Maybe they looking at the wrong place, maybe we were recently coral? hahahahaha (I'm joking guys!)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

sorry, duplicated post again!Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Wellll as you can see , the pelvis and legs are more similar to humans. But the arms and skull are more similar to gibbons. Some aspects of the jaw and teeth structures found in BOTH humans and gibbons, are also found in Lucy, but the jaw and teeth structure have a few differences from the chimp.Conclusion: This tree-swinging small brained ape, never found with complex tools, could walk quite well, very likely better than a gibbon. Its jaw and teeth were similar to modern apes like humans and also like gibbons, and yet its jaw and teeth were not similar to modern chimps.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Do you really think that is what they meant when they said "They already harbor latent reservoirs". The way you describe it, its as if the latent ability they referring to , is merely the ability to evolve one day. Which evolutionists claim about the whole genome. I believe they were referring to something more specific when they used the term "harbour latent reservoirs", the implication is that abilities are already in place, the design for potential change is already there. You say "I already know" this. This is the subject of this thread, but I remain unconvinced. There have been one or two unconvincing examples of this essential evolutionary process, EVER observed. But never observed combined with an extra coding gene, ie DNA based novel functions are always a claimed CHANGED function, rather than new additional function. You are welcome to re-post any such evidence if I have missed it, remember I did not participate in the early part of this thread. And the E.Coli example of aerobic functionality, I refuted by comparing it to the aerobic qualities of the staphylococcus and pointing out the already existing aerobic promoter in the E.coli, which indicates a revitalization of an existing aerobic function, rather than a novel function per se. Everything has the potential to adapt according to evolutionists, therefore I think you are understating the usage of the word "latent" in that article, by relating it to general evolutionary processes, rather than specific observances of latent already existing ability in that genome. Latent ability needs a process to get there, and yet theoretically there is nothing in variation and natural selection that would be able to select for latent ability, selection acts on blatant ability, actual fitness advantages, rather than latent/potential fitness advantages. Thus specific latent ability points more towards design than evolution. Kindly re-post the link, I haven't got the time to look for old links in this thread. No-one has EVER proved the process of duplication together with novel function. That is purely in the realm of speculation. If its shown to me that its possible in theory, there's still more processes to prove, ie does it ACTUALLY happen (I can tell you it has never been observed) and is it so prevalent that it actually explains the existence of modern organisms (well if it hasn't yet been observed, its difficult to prove its prevalent in history). Quite a difficult challenge for you. You missed my point. The original clone of the E.Coli experiment already had an aerobic promoter in the rnk gene, This means that the organism was not always anaerobic, if one section of it already had a latent aerobic function. Thus the ability of E.Coli to develop aerobic functionality is NOT NOVEL, it was latent, as proven by the existing aerobic promoter. Even under evolutionary assumptions, it would be obvious to an evolutionist that the aerobic ability had already evolved in the E.Coli, even if E.coli is known to be unsuitable to aerobic conditions at the moment. So the fact that a duplication event caused the promoter to start functioning again in aerobic conditions does not prove any novel function. Really do you think nature can just make a new function from nothing?? That is illogical , the function existed, it was revitalized through a unique set of circumstances. Let's focus on one specific example at a time, then we can eliminate each one as your logic is disproven (hahaha). On this note, let's scrap the E.Coli as a novel function as discussed in this message, to show that we are able to head somewhere. (focus on nylon/antibiotics?) Regarding your links, I do see the favorable duplications. It is therefore theoretically possible for one of the copies to mutate into a novel function. The loss of copy number shouldn't be a big problem, because a further duplication could replace it. Let's focus on novel functions then. Possibly. I thought the genetic overlap between mammoths and elephants was greater . But they could be two separate baramins. Please post your evidence for the differences you are claiming. But they could easily be separate baramins. They could easily be separate baramins. I am not a YEC, I believe biological life was created ~6500 years ago, not the earth. There is nothing that "easily" falsifies the view, especially in this thread that we are actually dealing with. Your other points will be falsified in other threads. Really??? Back up your comments please. Neanderthals bred with humans, which indicates a very closely matching genome. And I have no problem with a bonobo and a chimp on the ark, but all humans, even Neanderthals, come from Adam.wikipedia:
"At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"Difference ? 0.3 % I'm sure most of those difference are merely large inactive duplications, which can often occur. In just ONE generation, you can have an entire chromosome duplication, a few percent of the genome (Down's syndrome). To have a 0.3% duplication, its possible to retain fitness (unlike down's syndrome which reduces fitness) This does not mean its a new species, or cannot occur in 6500 years. (since Adam, Neanderthal's are not my particular taste, but maybe one of Noah's son's took a Neanderthal-likeness wife? and they bred Neanderthals? ) Are you seriously asking why features should be grouped. I frankly think that's a childish argument being put forward often in this thread, when even under evolutionary assumptions features do converge into suitable groupings depending on functionality. So whether designed, or evolved the very functionality determines the grouped features. This is common sense, and can be seen throughout nature. Birds have lungs, bone structure, and wing structure suitable for flight. Therefore they all have these features in common with eachother. Features are logically grouped, this can reflect design , or it can reflect evolution. Or even convergent evolution. The dominance of mammals reflects the feature grouping of temperature adaptability and emotional and intellectual intelligence. ie mammals are the best survivors of worldwide disasters and large hot and cold temperature ranges. We teach our young, we change our habits, our fur and warm bloodedness and ability to change habits helps with temperature change.Fish have scales, fins, no limbs, the ability to breathe under water. When many different species have the same set of common features, this reflects that the grouping of features is suitable to the ecological niche of the group. Groupings are obvious, to argue against it is just silly. Even out by two orders of magnitude, there should be millions of alleles in each locus. Not just 2000. So still your figures agree that the number of alleles should be numerous. But how do you define an allele? Any difference in a gene is a new allele surely? Correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be trying to differentiate between neutral mutations, but I'm not sure if they made that distinction when counting 2000 alleles in humans, they probably looked for any difference in the sequence to define a new allele.Yes. Please test that prediction. The overwhelming majority would have most of their base pairs matching the original four genes, even if demonstrating new alleles with minor mutations. ie Four of those genes, give or take a few point mutations in each gene. but you also have to take into account the Nephilim, beings came to earth disobediently and bred with women, their offspring would have additional genes. You misunderstand me, your posts do not challenge my beliefs even slightly. They are a sufficient challenge to force me to do research, rather than see immediate blatant logic flaws as per others posts on this thread. So I appreciate the challenge that forces me to think, but in no ways are you coming close to challenging my beliefs. There needs to be more substance to your figures, rates etc for that.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This first two images are the skull and jaw of a gibbon. Note the dentition, with prominent canines, as well as the prognathism. The final image is a comparison of chimpanzee, australopithecus (e.g., Lucy), and modern human.Your comment is wrong, as Lucy's jaw and teeth resemble modern humans far more than either gibbons or chimpanzees. The prominent canines are gone, and there is a reduction in both jaw size and prognathism. See the images below or google for other images.

No. Rather pointless of you to mention them then. No. Not anywhere near as human-like as Australopithecine pelvises. Look again. here are the chimp, Australopithecine and human pelvises; and here is the gibbon pelvis; Anyone with eyes can see that the gibbon pelvis is most similar to the chimp pelvis, by a wide margin. And with the hand, again, the differences are obvious and the gibbon hand is clearly less human-like than the chimp. Does your thumb come out from your wrist? If you're unsure, take a quick look. Again, anyone with eyes can see the difference. Of course, if your prefer to deny the evidence of your own eyes in favour of what the voices in your head tell you, go ahead. Which of these are the two most similar to each other mindspawn? Take your time... You can't admit that Lucy was even partially bipedal and simultaneously claim that it was fully arboreal. That makes no sense. Name one then. Name the ape that has been missed out due to "cherry picking". Substantiate the claim of cherry picking or drop it. Tell us which fossil you think has been missed out. You have already been shown that this is not how these conclusions were reached.To make this mistake once is forgiveable. To make it twice is perhaps careless, but to repeat the same refuted falsehood, time and time again is simply lying. Please stop lying. They are all apes mindspawn. All the fossils in that skull comparison photo were from apes. The only person careless enough to cite any non-ape in this thread has been you. Saying "It's an ape!" is meaningless. Please try to be more specific with your terminology. This is, as everyone must have guessed by now, untrue. Clear increase in brain size there. And yes, Lucy had a relatively small brain, but since she was at the base of the sequence this is not even vaguely problematic. Sure, okay; Proconsul had no prominent brow ridge.The point is not whether you can point to a single proto-ape with a prominent brow ridge. The point is that you can't make a case fora transitional fossil on the basis of one single feature.The case for Lucy as a transitional fossil is not made on the basis of a single feature. You know this to be true. None of the human-lineage fossils you have been shown has been classified on the basis of a single feature. Even you admit that one cannot call a fossil transitional on the basis of one single feature. I agree.To claim that Proconsul is anywhere near as human-like as Lucy or any other ape or hominin is inane. To claim this on the basis of a single feature is asinine. Oh right. Fine.Well you're screwed then, since this is not what the evidence shows. The evidence clearly shows a movement toward human-like characteristics in the Australopithecus and Homo groups. Not random. Your theory is dead. Can you show me any that were as human-like as Lucy? No you cannot.It is deeply dishonest of you to harp on about cherry picking when you are unable to substantiate the claim by providing examples. Put up or shut up mindspawn. Yeah, they also have tails and beaks. If you could show me an ape with a lovely set of flippers, you would have a point. As it is, you are merely gibbering nonsense.You criticise evolutionists for making their comparisons based on a single feature, even though you have been shown that this does not happen.Then you go ahead and make fatuous comparisons based on a single feature.Aren't you ashamed to behave so dishonestly? No he isn't. this is simply another reading comprehension fail on your part. Read it again;

quote:

---

"the comparison will reveal no humanlike features in Lucy that are unnecessary for upright bipedal locomotion"

---

Not the same thing.Plus, the author is correct. If creationism were true, there would be no reason to expect to see non-bipedalist human-like features in Lucy, yet we do see them. No. He is saying that creationism has no reason to predict non-bipedal human-like features in Lucy, which is not the same thing at all. Evolution on the other hand does predict this and its prediction is vindicated by observation. score one for evolution, again. I would love to see you try and substantiate that claim in detail. Seriously, do tell. Perhaps if you were blind, or had never seen a gibbon. For the rest of us, the difference is pretty clear.Try to remember, palaeontologists are not as inept as you. They can tell the difference between a gibbon and a hominin. If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.But enough of this, I'm still waiting to hear which fossil you think have been ignored by those pesky cherry pickers. I asked you, Percy asked you... we're still waiting. Come one mindspawn, which fossil is it that you think has been omitted?Mutate and Survive

No one is claiming that birds, being bipedal, are transitional between basal apes and humans. Obviously, bipedality by itself is not enough.However, australopithecines have a human-like pelvis, not a gibbon-like pelvis. Australopithecines have human-like features not found in other apes. Australopithecines also have features similar to other apes that are not found in humans. This makes australopithecines transitional by definition. That is exactly what we have, but you feel it necessary to ignore it. Even more, you make massive errors such as claiming the human pelvis is more like that of a gibbon than an australopithecine. How anyone can make that claim after being shown the anatomy of each species is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain why you continue with this charade? The logical conclusion is that if evolution is true then these species existed in the past. However, there is no logical requirement that we should have found these fossil species after looking at such a tiny fraction of fossil bearing strata.

That is exactly what they meant. We have already shown you multiple examples of changes in amino acid sequence that have resulted in beneficial phenotypes. If you are unconvinced by examples of exactly what you are asking for then the problem is yours, not ours. Which step in the process do you think is impossible? The novel function is the ability to express a different protein in aerobic conditions. This required a mutation, specifically a recombination event. If this is latent, then we are right to describe latent features as those that are produced by mutation followed by selection. How do you determine if two species belong to the same baramin? Can we see the math for this claim?