The Origin of Novelty

I may not be able tell you how many millimeters it is from the top of the namesake ceremonial mound to the center of the intersection of Cross Timbers and Long Prairie roads but I do know Texas exists and that Flower Mound, Texas, exists.The level of detail you are asking for is not available. The people here are not "experts" on the evolution of the eye, though we obviously know more about the subject than you do, which isn't all that hard actually. Neither are Dawkins, Meyers or Miller.To the level of detail you are so want to press no one knows. Unlike you, we do know how the general mechanisms of evolution work. We know the overwelming evidence, the facts, the reality to which you are so willingly blind. You have not studied the issue at all. This thread is proof. You have no conception of what the mechanisms of evolution entail. People speculate on how this or that could have happened within the mechanisms available and all you can do is laugh like an ignorant idiot because ... well ... you are, not realizing how foolish you make yourself look.You dig and dig for details until you get to the point where we just do not know then point to this lack of specifics giggling like a little school girl and say the whole theory falls. You are truly a moron. Case in point. The speculation that this led to the eye may not be accurate in the specifics, no one can know, but we do see such creatures with crude light sensitive spots that so exist today having an advantage over those that do not. Within the known mechanisms of evolution, of which you remain so hopelessly ignorant, these speculations have a lot more efficacy than your poof, god done it with magic crap.God poofed it. Talk about empty theories.

No, he doesn't.First, what kind of "novel" features are involved?Take humans.If his definition of "novel" feature is growing a second head, or humans developing gills for under-sea survival next week then he is asking for the "hopeful monster" which doesn't happen in evolution. Such an expectation is caused by gross ignorance of what evolution is and how it works.Is a population possessing longer than the species average leg-length a "novel" feature? How about a feature that allows a human population to thrive in the rarefied air of 12,000 feet? Is this a "novel" feature?If so then these are new novel features for humans that already happened. New as in 50,000 years. Anything shorter and pebble-brain is being his usual ignorant self in his expectation. Evolution does not say that novel features appear on demand, or even in a few hundred human lifetimes, and he cannot expect that of the theory.But there are millions of species on this planet. "Novel" features could be developing every week and we might never know. And if we saw them we may not recognize them.Besides, anything we come up with for pebbles will cause an instant re-definition of "novel" to exclude it.No. He does not have a valid point. Not even close.[edit]An after-thought.Give or take an ice age or two, the environment has been exceptionally steady on this planet for the past 200,000 years. There has not been a lot of selective pressures on most populations. Populations grow into their niche and enter stasis with genetic variation building up as a population grows.But, when this happens natural selection does just the opposite of innovate. It tends to maintain the successful phenotype. Populations will tend to remain in stasis until there is a reason (increased selective pressure) to adapt. Significant new features would be few if any at all over many thousands of generations.Edited by AZPaul3, : Like I said.

If this is right then his "abrasivness and intentional obfuscation" mark him as a troll. He is not here to debate or ask or learn or inform. He is here to throw sand in everybodys face.I think he is ignorant of the subject, willfully so. I think he refuses to study the concepts, to hear and understand the evidence or present any alternatives in any informative way. I think the cognitive dissonance between the facts of evolution and what he so desperately wants to believe is too much for him and he needs to lash out. A noble and worthy goal. Kudos for your patience and composure. With this twit I lack both.

You do so well make my point for me.

Repeat that? Advantage in what way? Are you really so dense as to think evolution finds having no feet an "advantage" since you won't stub your toe?You still have not learned the most basic tenet in evolution. Or is this another one of your deliberate obfuscations to further your inane argument?

This is like waving red meat in front of a lion. Oh the explanations I could give!Alas, I have Admin's admonitions and will acquiesce.

Not to a petulant little troll. You and I both know you are not looking for any answers.

If I read this right you think "true" evolution would have hereford with angus alleles, chihuahuas with dane alleles? And further that this diversity from some standard "bovine" alleles is a decrease in genetic diversity?So, having more types of alleles, diversity in alleles, is a decrease in genetic diversity.How does an increase in allele diversity decrease genetic diversity? How does that work?

We're crossing messages in flight. Sorry.What is a "true-bred line" in, let's say, bovines? What does it look like? What alleles does it have?

Except the distribution of endogenous retroviruses within the great apes belies the Grehan-Schwartz study but, of course, you did not bother to research whether that study was definitive. You found the words you were looking for and jumped on that shit bag with both of your left feet splattering crap all over your face.I would give reason why you would do this but in deference to Percy I'll stop here.

And you have to replace those alleles with other, new, alleles to make the new breed. You just cannot yank out one set of alleles without replacing it with a set of alleles that perform the same function though with a different phenotypic sub-trait.The hereford alleles make a hereford. To make an angus you have to yank out the hereford alleles and replace them with the angus alleles.To make some totally new breed of bovine from a hereford you have to yank out the hereford alleles and replace them with a totally new set of alleles that will make the characteristics of the new breed.So, again, how would this decrease genetic diversity?Edited by AZPaul3, : usual

Look it up.

Are you actually going to claim that endogenous retroviruses show no relationships in the tree of life? Do you even know what we're talking about?

Ahh, that falsehood. That is based on your religious faith, not the facts about the how genetics really works, so I won't argue this with you. We both know nothing will convince you of the facts otherwise when religious tenants are involved. Oh, I don't know. This sounds like an origin of novel phenotypes to me. Well within the bounds of this discussion. Good night, M'lady. We'll talk again soon.

No, I just used endogenous retroviruses to dispute a study that concluded the homo-pango clad was more viable than the homo-pan clad.And you still don't know what all the means do you. Thank you! I'm not sure he will like the comparison but I am flattered.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.