The Origin of Novelty

Thread copied here from the The Origin of Novelty thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'd like to request that the evolutionists treat this inquiry seriously and not try to pigeonhole it into what in their view were past insincere attempts.Evolutionists must concede that they have no direct evidence of the origin of novelty. What they have is evidence that evolution produces diversity and adaptation, and from this they infer how evolution might produce novelty. The problem I think being posed is how close evolutionists can come to providing direct evidence of evolution producing novelty by using examples. The strongest examples would include evidence consistent with blind evolutionary processes as opposed to purposeful design.

I think Bolder-dash is looking more for structural novelties (though it's ultimately up to him). He understands that many structures have predecessors, such as legs evolved from fins, but if at one time you had a creature whose body had nothing where his distant descendants have fins, how did fins originate?

Hi Dr A,As moderator I don't wish to get into any extended dialogs, or any dialogs at all for that matter, but if you have something to say that you think would bring more clarity to the discussion then if you could express yourself less cryptically it would be appreciated.

In conformance with the Moderator Guidelines, this is written warning that your next violation of the Forum Guidelines in this thread will result in a suspension.I wouldn't characterize my efforts in the same way as Tangle, though I grant it is consistent with my actions. I feel I am trying to frame the discussion in the most challenging way possible for evolutionists so that we don't get bogged down again in arguments about whether, for an example from previous discussions, nylon digestion is novel or not.

From Panda in Message 64: From AZPaul3 in Message 65: From Drosophilla in Message 78: From Bolder-dash in Message 79: From Dwise1 in Message 84: This is just a warning. The next message from anyone on this list who focuses his comments on the supposed deficiencies of his antagonist(s) will draw a suspension.Concerning the TopicThe topic is the origin of novelty, but discussion seems to have already moved on to conclusions. If discussion of the origin of novelty has competed then I can put this thread into summation mode, let me know.I think a thread about how one draws conclusions from incomplete data, which seems to be more the focus at this time, would be pretty interesting if someone wants to propose one.

Hi Bolder-dash,I think the answers you've been given are pretty much it. If you find them incomplete and unsatisfactory then there's nothing wrong with that, but that's a conclusion.There are always more details and examples that can be constructively explored, and the reasons why they are still unsatisfying or incomplete can also be constructively explored. For example, discussion of whether the adaptive process has a stopping point could continue. I can leave the thread open if constructive discussion continues.But it looks to me like the real issue now is how scientific investigation moves knowledge forward without having to first answer all questions, and that's a different topic. If someone wants to propose a thread somewhat along these lines I'll give it a look as soon as I can.

The links worked for me, though the first one took a while to come up. You might try giving them a minute or two after clicking on them, especially if you have an average or slow connection.

Hi Bolder-dash,Let me be more clear. As moderator I take no sides. My sole interest is fostering constructive debate, which we accomplish here by enforcing the Forum Guidelines.So as long as constructive discussion of your topic, the origin of novelty, is ongoing this thread will remain open, but what you seem more interesting in doing is declaring how great you're doing, as you did just now in claiming you've been delivering beat-downs similar to those received by Chinese football teams.So if this thread is really as you describe, "still fairly new and ongoing," then don't you think its a bit early for these kinds of declarations? Save them for the summation, or even better, be above that.

And I think Bolder-dash is a participant in the discussion, not the subject of discussion. 'Nuf said?Bolder-dash, I see you too have replied to AZPaul3's message, so let me issue a caution. Obviously I am moderating this thread. Please let me handle moderator issues. If you choose to try to handle moderator issues yourself and it becomes an escalating ad hominem-fest then it is unlikely to end well suspension-wise.Please, no replies to this message.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Perhaps one could confine one's comments to what was said rather than extrapolating from it to draw conclusions about the person who said it.

Faith, please let me handle the moderation. If you have an issue or complaint then please post it to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color].

My comment to you was about moderation, not topic. I agree with AZPaul3 that allele distribution would be on-topic in any discussion about the origin of novelty.

I couldn't find where New Scientist was the origin of the quote provided by Bolder-Dash. I found the quote at many sites, but not there.Also, about the negative comments about New Scientist, are you possibly thinking of some other magazine? It has its flaws, but I don't think they have any "stuffed-ego, lying, creationist shills" on staff.

Moderators are too few to be everywhere. If you're experiencing problems in any thread then you can post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color].