The Origin of Novelty

Hi, Bolder-dash. This is something that boggles my mind, as well. There's also a fish that has a fin that looks like a smaller fish (complete with an eyespot), which it uses as a lure prey: how on Earth did it manage to evolve an eyespot in exactly that location, but not anywhere else on the fish?I don't have a complete answer to this question: each instance likely has a unique explanation. But there are places we can turn for insights. For example, arthropods are fantastic models for this, because there are certain traits and characteristics that are common in the group, but differ in placement on the body:Many insects have a membrane-like patch of exoskeleton called the tympanum, that serves as an ear, but they have them all over the place. Grasshoppers have tympana on their legs, moths have them underneath the wings, mantids have only one tympanum on the underbelly, etc.Many arthropods also develop venoms and silks. Spiders produce silk from spinnerets near the anus, and venom from their chelicerae (fangs); whereas mites produce both silk and venom from the chelicerae; and scorpions produce no silk, but venom from a stinger near the anus. Some insects also produce silk: caterpillars produce silk from spinnerets near their mouthparts; and Embiidina (or "webspinners") produce silk from their forelegs. Some insects produce venom, often in the saliva, but Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) produce them in a modified ovipositor (egg-laying organ). Centipedes modified their first pair of legs into "forcipules," which deliver venom just like spider fangs do.So, from my perspective as a professional entomologist, it doesn't seem unreasonable to propose that characteristics can "pop" up on many different parts of the body. Why this doesn't seem to happen often in vertebrates, I don't know. Forgive me for posting yet another diagram, this one, but it's helpful.In this case, the diagram doesn't show evolution of the eye: it shows development of the eye, i.e., it shows how the eye grows from undifferentiated stem cells during the development of an embryo. Let's focus on the cephalopod eye (on the left).From the diagrams that Subbie posted, you see a diversity of mollusc eyes, and you'll notice that each of them corresponds roughly to a phase in the embryonic development of the cephalopod eye. This suggests that, for molluscs at least, eyes evolved by adding steps to the embryonic development of the eye.Also, it gives some insights into how the various phases develop at all. You mentioned 3 phases specifically: "shallow eye," "deeper eye" and "liquid-filled eye." You describe the "liquid-filled eye" as a "sudden" appearance, but, in actuality, it's not sudden at all. The eye cavity has always been filled with liquid (sea water), it just wasn't closed off from the sea.

Hi, Taq. I feel obligated to point out that the "transitional stages," in this case, aren't arranged in a phylogenetic order that is consistent with our evolutionary story.For example, Murex is a marine gastropod, but, in that diagram of the "progressive" stages of mollusc eye evolution, it fits between two cephalopods. So, either the nautilus "pinhole" eye is a secondary development from a lensed eye, or the lens has evolved independently in Murex and octopus.I don't think this really hurts the evolutionary explanation, but the ordered sequence of stages is still an extrapolation from non-homologous data sources. That is, we don't have the direct evidence for all these stages yet.

Hi, Bluegenes. I must have been thinking of the mussel species pictured in this blog post.And, intuitively, the idea of feedback selection generating a fine-tuned system makes a lot of sense in general terms. I mean, you'd imagine that a mussel phenotype with some type of pigmentation on it would first emerge, and that the pigmentation could be modified over time with iterative applications of natural selection.But, the idea that the very first "spots" on the lure were almost certainly random with respect to the functionality of the lure, yet still improved fitness enough to keep the phenotype around, is hard to visualize intuitively.Evolution has done weirder things than that, so I don't really doubt that it could do this too, but I have to admit that it's not that easy for me to wrap my brain around.Edited by Blue Jay, : I saluted myself.

Hi, Bolder-dash. It is a pretty fortuitous occurrence, isn't it? I mean, if the eye evolved, then there were at least two mutations: a mutation that causes light-sensitivity in skin cells, and then another mutation that causes a "dimple" in the same location as the light-sensitive skin cells. it has to have been this way because there are many animals out there with dimple-less eyespots, so eyespots must have evolved and existed for a long time prior to the occurrence of the "dimple."Once you get that far (a dimple-and-eyespot arrangement), I think most of the rest of it follows fairly easily through a process of subtle mutation and selection, but I do personally struggle to grasp that particular piece of the story. It could very well be that proverbial lightning simply struck in the same place twice: two random mutations just happened to line up.Still, the fact that very similar "optical dimples" apparently evolved independently two times makes me think there might be more to it than just pure happenstance. Perhaps the "dimpling" was originally a body-wide skin texturing, but it was disadvantageous, except where it improved vision, so later rounds of mutation and selection caused the signal to be localized only to the eyes. Or, perhaps something about eyespots makes them more prone to "dimpling" than regular skin.I can't tell you right now which, if any, of those ideas is correct, but I don't think that's a significant problem for the Theory of Evolution, at all. Remember, there are really good reasons why we don't have all the answers: usually, when we lack an answer for something, it's because there isn't enough data to provide any answer at all.

Hi Bolder-dash.You're certainly right that we don't have all the answers you think we should have. I hold no reservations about admitting that. And, if the conditions of victory were getting your opponent to admit that they don't know something, well, I guess that means you won. But, I have no idea why this seems so damning to evolution in your mind.We have never claimed that science is not a work in progress, nor have we ever claimed that we understand everything about evolution, life the universe, etc. If we already knew all this stuff, why would we still be doing science?The whole point of science is that it allows us to make use of our knowledge, even when that knowledge is imperfect. And that's what we need, because our knowledge will never be perfect. What you're quibbling with are the facts of evolutionary history. But, as you should know, facts are just specific pieces of information, and the universe offers no guarantee that we will be granted access to every specific piece of information that ever existed. All we can do is gather the bits of information we do have access to, construct hypotheses that allow us to estimate information we don't have, and try to see which hypothesis is the most likely.You're stuck on this stupid notion that, because we don't have all the answers, we must not have any of the answers. But, you'll notice that neither you nor Arriba has been willing or able to provide an answer for how God created the eye, or for why the peacock has a long feather-train on Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock. In fact, neither of you seems to even want an answer to those questions: "God did it somehow," is perfectly acceptable to you.So, in your mind, our inability to answer every single question is utterly damning to our worldview, but your inability to answer every single question is apparently immaterial to the validity of your worldview, and is, in fact, preferable in some cases.The sooner you can get over this stupid notion that we have to know everything before we can know anything, the sooner you'll actually start to understand our worldview, and the sooner you'll actually start to learn things.

Hi, Bolder-dash. I can see how that might be frustrating for you. But, I feel like I (and those around me) have been very clearly and very carefully not "declaring it a proven theory"; making a big deal about it not being such, in fact. I'm sure some other evolutionists somewhere have declared it such, but I don't appreciate being held responsible for what some other evolutionist may have said.Can you direct me to an instance where I personally declared evolution a "proven theory"? If so, I will gladly amend my ways and (once again) admit to you that I was wrong about something.I will state that I regard the Theory of Evolution as the best theory available, and, frankly I regard it as so accurate and reliable that the truth of the matter regarding life's diversity and history is probably not very far at all from what the current theory suggests. This is exactly what I was trying to convey to you in my last couple of posts, and it's a bit disappointing to me that you didn't pick up on it. I suspect that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to explain the emergence of the eye, but I do not know that, and am willing to entertain other possibilities.The beauty of science is that it allows us to not only come up with hypotheses, but allows us to assess the uncertainties involved with our hypotheses. I can see that there is considerable uncertainty about many things: e.g., the evolution of eyes, the evolution of the peacock's feather-train, the evolution of avian flight, etc. But, I do not see how that uncertainties associated with these specific examples are so great that they pose a serious challenge to the overall framework of the Theory of Evolution.In truth, it's entirely possible that some Intelligent Designer caused the "dimples" on mollusc eyespots that paved the way for the evolution of eyes. But, if that were true, we still wouldn't have access to that information, so we would be in the same boat we are in now: i.e., we would still need some evidence of some kind to show us that it's even a viable hypothesis.For hypotheses based on evolution, such evidence has been found in the form of large-scale patterns in biodiversity; incomplete, but compelling fossil sequences; and direct observations of the molecular mechanisms in action in example systems. So I consider many of these hypotheses to be viable (although there are a fair share of non-viable evolutionary hypotheses, too).I do not believe that equivalent evidence has been uncovered for any hypothesis contingent on Intelligent Design, so I relegate those hypotheses to the "unlikely" bin. I am willing to have my mind changed, but I will not do so in the absence of compelling evidence. And, arguments along the same vein as this thread (i.e., "evolution has trouble explaining X") are not particularly compelling.Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

Hi, Bolder-dash. It's certainly hypothetically possible for such an argument to be compelling. But, I contest your implicit claim that you've been making such an argument. All you've done is say that we don't know some specific fact, and that our theory must therefore be wrong.I've laid out some ways in which our theory might very well explain those facts. But, since we don't have access to the information that would be necessary to test those ideas, what exactly do you expect me to do? Lie and claim that I have an answer, when I don't?It would certainly be convenient for your argument if I did lie, because that would demonstrate that I'm dishonest, just as you're trying to make everybody think.But, my hope is that anybody reading this debate will see that I am unwilling to lie, even when it favors my position in the debate, and will realize that this does not square with your outrageous caricature of "my side."----- I don't know what to tell you. I don't know these blind, dishonest people who are trying control the debate, and I'm not even sure I believe your premise that they exist. But, even if they do exist, where do you get off holding me accountable for their opinions and their actions? I haven't tried to debate you by constantly talking about the ethics or personal views of Dembski or Behe or Ham, but have tailored my arguments and my debate tactics specifically to you and the points you raise. I would appreciate it if you returned the favor.----- You and I have already failed to reach an agreement on whether or not there were beards in a series of photographs of chimpanzees. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me much that we cannot agree on the information contained in something as complex as the fossil record. Can you describe to me what it is in the fossil record that "points more toward a directed process" than toward a "meandering process"?----- We both at least seem to agree on one thing: that faith is meaningless.

I thought we had done a good job of describing it to you in general terms: it was just the specific examples that we couldn't comment on beyond hypotheses, because it's intellectually dishonest to make claims in the absence of evidence. I'm not sure what you expect here: by definition, there is no explanation for "how all these multiple steps came about randomly": because the word "randomly" is the explanation. But, in actuality, only part of it is random.As Drosophila explained upthread, chemistry is probabilistic: so every time a DNA molecule is replicated, there will be "errors" (or cases where the reaction doesn't produce a perfect copy). As far as we can tell, there is no real mechanistic explanation for this: chemistry is simply imperfect.In a population of replicators, you therefore get a lot of variation simply because of these random errors or mutations. And, variation in phenotype results in variation in the likelihood for success. So, success is not random. That's natural selection.So, any population will have a variety of individuals. For example, our putative slug-like mollusc with eyespots may have been a member of a population that includes some individuals with dimpled eyespots, or individuals with dimples all over their body, or individuals with eyespots that are prone to dimpling. Therefore, in this population, the relative usefulness of dimpled and non-dimpled eyespots would produce a non-random outcome from random variation.----- Epigenetics is not a useful topic here. By definition, epigenetics does not involve changes to gene sequences, so it cannot explain why animals whose phenotypic differences are due to differences in gene sequences.The whole concept of Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology) is that phenotypes arise form patterns of gene expression, and not solely from the sequence of base-pairs in the protein-coding genes. But, patterns of gene expression are also controlled by genetic elements: mutations to regulator genes cause protein-coding genes to be expressed at different times.A good example of this is the gene Antennapedia. When the gene antennapedia undergoes certain types of point mutations within its regulatory region, patterns of expression are changed, and the type of appendages that are grown on a given segment of the body is also changed (e.g., the fly may grow legs where it would have grown antennae).So, arthropods have genes that control the "fate" of a given appendage. It seems pretty easy to conclude that mutations to genes like this one can explain the variation in appendage arrays among arthropod groups. For example, some arthropod clades have two pairs of antennae (e.g., crustaceans), some have only one pair (insects), and some have no antennae at all (arachnids).----- 我大概十年前当了摩門教的傳教士時候住在台灣。 105;在那里的第一次過年，什麽路上都有飛的焰火。甚 至我窗戶差一點就被焰火破碎了！（不好意思：我 981;太會簡體字）。Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

I have to be honest, and say that Bolder-dash actually has a valid point. If we posit that novel structures, like eyes, legs, antennae, wings, tentacles, etc. evolved through mutation and natural selection, and that mutation and natural selection are still happening now... then we do need an explanation for why we don't see novel structures popping up now.Of course, there are some pretty good explanations available already:

1. First of all, it's entirely possible that we do see novel structures popping up now, but perhaps we don't recognize that it's happening. This would especially be the case if the process is very subtle and gradual.
   ​
2. Perhaps the benefits of adding novelties are smaller for modern animals than they were for ancient animals. This would make sense in some cases. For example:
   ​
   1. An animal that already has a complex suite of organs and appendages may already "have all its bases covered," and there aren't any major roles left for a novel structure to play, so there's no motive to evolve it.
   2. Also, an animal evolving a new structure, like legs, might not be able to compete with animals that already have a comparable structure, so it fares better if it just stays in its current niche.
3. Perhaps modern animals have evolved genomic and developmental processes that are less amenable to the emergence of novel features. For example, an increasingly complex suite of regulatory genes would be like a Rube Goldberg machine: the more complex it gets, the more precise the process has to be in order to ensure it accomplishes its task. So, mutations would tend to destabilize such a process.

These seem like ideas that "should" be testable, but I can't think of practical way to actually test them with current knowledge and technology. Any ideas?Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

Hi, Paul. Perhaps I should have said that he has a valid question, rather than a valid point, as Herebedragons suggested.----- The discussion has so far focused on skin cells evolving an ability to sense light and on "dimples" evolving on a pre-existing patch of photosensitive skin cells. Outlandish ideas like extra heads or gills have not featured prominently.----- If you can get past the abrasiveness and the intentional obfuscation, I think you'll find that Bolder-dash understands evolution rather better than you want to think. Here is Bolder-dash's Message 46 upthread:

quote:

---

So that's the first mutation that leads to an eye ? Ok fine,gets go with that. so then I just need a mutation which leads to a dimple or depression somewhere on my body and I will be able to feel that sunlight even more. Amazing.

​

Next we need the dimple to be passed to the next generation. I have not yet heard of these skin dimples which get passed along like this, would it be like a dimpled chin? It's still kind of hard imaging a dimpled chin focusing light.

---

This is clearly not a bad understanding of how evolution works: it's a bad understanding of how eyes work. He gets the overall story, but he thinks it falls apart because the details don't line up*. In both of the discussions I've had with him since returning to EvC these last couple months, his arguments have fallen apart because he misunderstood some detail about the system we were discussing. For example, he argued against sexual selection as an explanation for human hairlessness because he couldn't accept that apes and proto-human females might have had beards. On this thread, he didn't realize that concavity can improve the function of an eye.But, in both cases, he demonstrated an understanding of the principle of random mutation producing variation on a trait, and natural selection filtering the variants by survival/reproductive potential. He just didn't think carefully enough about the facts to see that they do, in fact, line up with the theory (or was intentionally refusing to admit that they line up). Either way, it's not a conceptual failure on his part: it's an empirical failure.-----On the subject of eye evolution, one of the most commonly-cited studies is Nilsson & Pelger. They used a mathematical model that allowed mutations on a variety of features of the eye, and introduced selection for visual acuity. Even when selection was relatively weak (i.e., the complex eye had only a slight advantage over simpler eyes), they got a complex eye to evolve in just a couple thousand generations.This is quite a powerful study, and has been widely disseminated by Dawkins. But, there is still one minor problem with it: Nilsson and Pelger defined exactly what the mutations could be prior to the experiment. That is, they assumed that there would be mutations causing variation in concavity, transparency and/or thickening of certain cell layers.But, in reality, what reason is there to believe that a patch of skin might randomly develop a concavity on it? Do we see random concavities on animal integument today? If not, then what reason can we possibly have to believe that animals millions of years ago might have fortuitously received a concavity in a place that was extremely useful to them?You have to admit that, on face value, it does seem uncannily fortuitous. So, it's not an unreasonable question. Bolder-dash is too quick to "bolder-dash" to conclusions because of it, but it does warrant some careful thought on our part.If the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the origin of eyes, one of three things must be true:

1. The co-occurrence of photosensitivity and concavity was extremely fortuitous
2. Photosensitivity and concavity are actually common mutations, and their co-occurrence was simply a matter of time
3. The two traits are linked somehow (i.e., something about photosensitivity facilitates or promotes concavity)

We have to reserve judgment for now, because we don't know how to decide which of these possibilities is correct. In the interim, we're going to subject to a lot of criticism, but inaccurate criticism of the creationists isn't going to help our cause at all.

Hi, Bolder-dash. It's definitely a complicated issue. In the end, though, out of all the theories and hypotheses and other ideas out there, the Theory of Evolution comes the closest to providing a good explanation for all the mess. Here's why:

1. We can observe that most of the differences in phenotype between groups are due to differences in base-pair sequences within genes (either protein-coding genes or regulatory genes)
2. The diversity of life fits within a nested-hierarchical pattern that is indicative of cumulative changes to base-pair sequences over time
3. We have observed random mutations producing exactly such changes to base-pair sequences as would account for the observed patterns

Your objection is basically your own incredulity: the probabilities involved seem too hard to swallow. And, I agree with that: intuitively, the probabilities seem extraordinary. But, I am still inclined to accept that the best explanation (ToE) is, in fact, the best explanation. The ToE would not be so good at fitting the evidence if it was completely and irreconcilably wrong, so any perceived shortcomings are most likely explained by the incompleteness of the theory, or by our own misunderstanding of its elements.By comparison, an alternative explanation, Intelligent Design, posits that all the patterns we chalk up to evolution are either due to common design principles or to the whims of a designer, neither of which has any meaningful measure of explanatory power. Furthermore, the mechanisms of Intelligent Design are unspecified, and completely unattested.So, if I am forced to choose between an explanation that fits the evidence well and relies on mechanisms that have been documented, but strains my "common sense"; and an explanation with dubious fit to the evidence, no documented mechanisms, but a comfortable fit to with my superstitious fears about the uncertainties of life... I consider it responsible of me to quiet my superstitions and accept that the most likely explanation is that my "common sense" is mistaken.

Hi, Dash. But it's your common sense that you're using to render this judgment on the evidence. The evidence fits a pattern that would be expected from the mechanisms we propose for ToE, but you decide that it couldn't work, because the odds of it all working out that way seem unrealistic to you.Well, how do you know what probabilities are realistic and what probabilities are not? You let your incredulity decide that for you. You have no other reason to think evolution doesn't account for the diversity of life.----- I didn't say it was an example of life evolving to be more complex. In fact, let's not talk about "complexity" at all: it's a very poorly defined term. Your previous posts all talked about "novelty," and that's a little better defined, so let's talk about that instead.What I said was that we have examples of changes in gene sequence, and such changes in gene sequence are all that is needed to explain the diversity of life.I had a Great Debate with Faith a couple years ago, where she didn't accept that beneficial mutations could happen. My response to your point here will be quite parallel to my response to her:Novelty, benefit, handicap, fatality, etc.: these are all phenotypes. When a mutation happens, it does not first consider what its phenotypic effects will be, then decide not to happen if its phenotypic effects would be novelty, benefit or increasing complexity. There is no mechanistic distinction between a mutation that produces a novelty, and a mutation that does not produce a novelty: adenine-to-guanine is just adenine-to-guanine, regardless of whether it causes an eyespot to become concave, or causes mitochondrial myopathy in humans, or has no phenotypic consequences whatsoever.----- Well, I don't actually know that RM/NS can't account for everything. I don't think it can, but I know far too little about molecular biology to trust my own opinion as authoritative.But, let's assume you're right, and I do know this. If that's the case, you ask a very important question: why assume RM/NS can account for anything if I know it can't account for everything?The obvious answer is that I actually know that RM/NS can at least account for some things. Here is a link to a study by Hallett and Maxwell (1991) regarding demonstration of a beneficial mutation in E. coli, and here is my summary of the study's findings for Faith.So, I know that point mutations can result in changes to gene sequences, and that these changes in gene sequence can result in differential fitness. I also know that mutations are quite common (you probably have about 70* of them yourself). *The article I linked to says 60, but the actual research paper says 70.I don't know of any other mechanism that has been observed to produce natural variation in gene sequences, so, until I do, I will stick with the mechanism that I know can explain at least some of the data. But, I will be happy to add other mechanisms as soon as they are demonstrated (e.g., horizontal gene transfer is probably an important one, but I'm not up on the theory or evidence for that).Edited by Blue Jay, : "URL" tag mistakeEdited by Blue Jay, : Another "URL" tag mistake

Hi, Dash. I'm not sure I understand the direction that this discussion between you and RAZD has taken, but you seem to have lost sight of the topic at hand. Are you arguing that a concave surface on a photosensitive patch wouldn't improve vision?If so, I can tell you that you're wrong. Concave/parabolic light receptors don't "feel the light better" or "focus the light": they detect light coming from oblique angles; and they distinguish between light coming from the right, and light coming from the left. This is a well-documented phenomenon in physics, and was the basis of early inventions like the pinhole camera and the camera obscura. It's a principle that's also used extensively in life, not only in the pit eyes of some molluscs, but also in the heat-sensitive pit organs of several types of snake.Personally, I'm skeptical of this whole suite of experiments: I didn't think human skin was actually photosensitive in the sense that RAZD is espousing. But, I could be wrong, so maybe I'll go try it sometime and find out.But, on the subject of the evolution of eyes, we're not talking about a dimple evolving on a random patch of semi-photosensitive skin: we're talking about a concavity evolving on the surface of a fully-developed visual organ that already has multiple specialized tissue layers and even an optic nerve to allow central processing. In this case, the physics is clear, as Taq explained: a depressed pit allows crude directionality.But, the real question you've been asking is whether or not mutations could allow such a development in the eye. Taq and I have both provided argumentation about that upthread: do you have any response to those arguments?

Hi, Dash. I have no objections to your terribly important amendment.Out of curiosity, do you espouse some form of non-random mutation as a mechanism for evolution?----- Well, I don't dispute your definition of "random." However, you seem to still be lacking an understanding of how mutations translate into phenotypes. It sounds like you think there is a one-to-one correlation between mutations and organs or organ components, like there is a "fingernail" gene and an "earlobe" gene, and a "hair" gene (baldness, in your view, is undoubtedly caused by a lack of the "hair" gene).Random mutations won't produce corneas or adjustable pupils. They might produce patches of skin that have some of the characteristics of a cornea, but they won't make a cornea outright. For example, a mutation might cause the skin to become more translucent. And, actually, people's skin can and does vary in translucence: it's just a matter of the amounts of pigment.----- And, you missed the whole point of my Message 122.I know that RM/NS does explain at least some of the variation in gene sequences among organisms.
I know of no other demonstrated mechanism that can explain any of the variation in gene sequences among organisms.
Therefore, as of right now, RM/NS is the only mechanism I can defensibly turn to for an explanation.If you can provide evidence that raindrops explain any of the variation in gene sequences among organisms, I will be happy to endorse your "nighttime raindrops" idea as a valid scientific hypothesis.Edited by Blue Jay, : Remove the testy bit

Hi, Mindspawn.I don't think we've ever debated before, but maybe I just forgot. Either way, welcome to the thread! If you don't mind, when I discuss your hypothesis, I'm going to take terminology from panspermia and baraminology, because it seems to fit the bill.Your hypothesis is basically that life on Earth came from somewhere else (panspermia), and that the evolutionary Tree of Life is actually a "Forest of Life," rather than a single tree (baraminology).The only way that this really differs from the mainstream views of modern evolutionary biology, is that it rejects the notion of common descent (which is not a necessary tenet of the ToE, but one that is currently mostly agreed upon).So, your hypothesis would predict nested hierarchical patterns in the diversity of life, just as mainstream evolutionary biology does. But, it would also predict that the pattern of nested hierarchies would break down at some point, such that we would be unable to link all the separate lineages of organisms into a single Tree.The two hypotheses generally agree on the nested hierarchical patterns. Where we differ, however, is in whether there are "breaks" in that pattern. Evolutionary biology does not posit such breaks, so it does not have to provide evidence, one way or the other: it is incumbent upon baraminologists to produce additional evidence to support the additional mechanic of their hypothesis (the principle of parsimony).So, how can we identify where the pattern of nested hierarchies potentially breaks down? To me, it looks like the pattern doesn't break down: every level in the hierarchy seems to be nested inside a larger level, and the pattern of diversity at each level seems to differ only in magnitude, not in kind. But, I could simply be overlooking something, so let's see if we can "baraminize" our current Tree of Life.You sort of imply that biological novelties might hold the key. You claim that we never see new protein-coding genes emerge: we only see deletions, reductions, losses of function, etc.Well, if this is correct, I would predict that we could clearly divide up all life-forms into a distinct set of baramins, in which the basal forms of each baramin have the maximal number of protein-coding genes within the baramin, and all derived forms would have either the same number, or fewer, and none would have any novel genes or structures. And, I would also expect that we couldn't organize these baramins into a pattern that resembles the nested hierarchical pattern we would observe within a baramin (i.e., no two baramins should appear more closely related to one another than any other two).