The Origin of Novelty

Thanks for posting the links. I still haven't read the early part of the thread, kept too busy by everyone since my first post here.
I readily admit mutations can cause improved fitness and novel functions. These are REDUCED complexity mutations, ie disabled regions. The insertion mutation of these mice caused the promotor to disable. A similar example is the duffy gene, where disabling mutations can increase fitness in humans exposed to malaria. Thus organisms can gain a net fitness and new function, even while losing some functionality and losing some complexity (they lose activity in a gene that in more normal circumstances would have some benefit). This loss of complexity over time, although one of the processes of evolution, cannot explain the appearance of modern life-forms.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Rather than me not understanding the paper, it seems you did not quite understand my comments. If in a laboratory they choose a particular organism that is lacking amplification, when the normal state of the species is known to be amplified, then they are pre-empting expected results by artificially creating amplification where nature already has it. They are just copying nature. Just the fact that they chose the place in the genome that is already known to have duplicates as their position to produce artificial duplicates, makes their conclusions about the value of coding duplicates doubtful. By rare, I mean in dispute, never convincingly observed. The e.coli example of novel genetic function is close, involves the promoter and not the gene, and mimics a close relative , the staphylococcus. Is it a new function? Or did the mutation re-activate a silent aerobic promoter that always existed in the active state of that gene in the staphyylococcus? Please! I'm happy with any proof or even schoolbook illustration of long-term nested hierarchies, I believe in short term hierarchies but everyone just seems to make sweeping statements in overconfident fashion on this site. I prefer a more scientific approach with examples of actual long-term nested hierarchies, instead of unproven philosophy. Nevertheless, if its nature copying itself badly, or nature losing genes, neither process involves new coding genes.Let me explain it this way, not to argue from evidence, but for you to understand my view on the matter. The biblical view is a move from an exclusive vegetarian pre-flood diet (includes starch) to a protein filled diet. Thus to start off the post-flood world with many individuals with high copy numbers , and then de-selection of those with high copy numbers makes perfect sense for a vegetarian population that subsequently becomes a hunter gatherer population in certain communities. If these hunter gatherer populations undergo urbanization in modern society, and a return to a less protein filled diet (expensive meat, no hunting) those rare individuals who have retained high copy numbers will become selected into greater proportions of the population. Thus we have a change in copy numbers merely through sexual variation, and not through mutational duplication.IF some individuals undergo a duplication mutation in the same region, this would be duplicating what nature has already produced, high copy numbers in that area. This would explain the "messy" arrangements, but this is re-establishing sequences already there, the over-producing of proteins has never been observed to add to fitness. This is what I like, to get to actual numbers. You are stating a fact here "And there are far too many human CNVs to have occurred in the last 300 generations of evolution". Could you kindly back this up with exact figures please, or alternatively refrain from making sweeping statements.'You also need a very high mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for a 6,500 year old Eve" - this statement also needs actual figures to back it up. I'm happy with the information I have presented. I feel that the fact that most haplogroup maps show that the greatest diversity is in the Middle East, is satisfactorily convincing. The only evidence I have seen against this is that the DNA from Africa shows more mutations, and is therefore older. This logic is incomplete because it is a well known fact that mutation rates are higher during prolonged sun exposure, and so the higher mutations in African DNA does not necessarily reflect the older population. Without evidence presented from you, the argument favors the Middle East, although some would generalize the origin of humans from South-Western Asia.

Exactly! Does anything in your evolutionist deductive reasoning require mutual exclusivity of the two concepts? But not just a failsafe plan, creativity and variety and beauty are also goals in their own right. Not everything has a practical purpose, some things in nature are beautiful, some are amazing in their sheer uniqueness. Not actually, I'm constructing nothing, I'm merely expressing the obvious regarding the nature of the Creator. It would be natural that our Creator creates in logical patterns, and yet also produces amazing exceptions to standardized patterns. If creationism cannot be contradicted by reality, it is a strength, not a weakness of the theory. The evolution/creation debate is more likely to be solved by mathematicians. Genome sequences have to be compared to current observed rates of mutations to see which position is more mathematically tenable. Certainly each view has the potential to be falsifiable, but proven mutations, and proven mutation rates have to be defined. Under evolutionary assumptions, most genomes are accumulated mutations, under creationism they are created with few mutations. Comparisons can be made, mutations are being more clearly defined. I believe that the evidence will increasingly point to creationist time frames, let's see what the future holds.

Maybe you should say the same to Bluegenes regarding his so-called superior view on human diversity which he seems reluctant to describe.

Humans and chimps evolved, therefore their differences are evolved, therefore their differences are proof that novel functions evolve?? What an interesting circular argument!!!Someone please help this guy with deductive reasoning......(ps moderators, I'm not being personal here, I am merely pointing out his complete failure to reason his point to any degree that makes any sense. Maybe a little moderator public guidance will help him, it seems to be freely given here to Bolder-dash)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

HAHA even I said I was speculating, so your comment that I'm speculating is perfectly true and already admitted by me, so you are a little late in pointing it out. You seem to be have been distracted from my real point.This is what I said, my point stands: If you feel you can confidently mix and match parts of the human eye with parts of the octopus eye, and guarantee an improvement, I would see you as overconfident when we do not yet know all the facts about biology. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Taq, what makes you sure that there is a mutation, rather than merely changed alllele frequencies? If differing alleles already exist in the mouse population, some for light color, some for dark color, don't you think its only natural via adaptation through variation and selection that the new allele frequencies of both light and dark populations would reflect the best allele combinations for that region respectively?The best way to detect mutations is to isolate a population and then check for absence of mutations in the original population. When this isolated population then shows genetic changes, this is proof of mutation. No such study was done with the mice, the results of the study could merely be a reflection of changed allele frequencies and nothing more. The dark alleles are dominant with the dark mice, the light alleles dominant with the light mice. Simple as that. Evolutionists over estimate the predominance of mutations due to their assumption that most of the genome is there from mutations.

I just like fairness to both sides. Not following anyone's example. the wording is different, the point he was scolded for is the same: I wish Bluegenes just stated which region he thinks has more human diversity and why, instead of indicating I am wrong and yet being mysterious about his correct answer. I've nothing against his silence on the matter, if he doesn't wish to defend his view that's fine by me, what I don't like is that a creationist is advised against holding back his views, yet the evolutionist is not advised against holding back his evidence.The impression you give is that you are intervening in the debate on behalf of evolutionists because you think it will be in their favor if Bolder-Dash gives detail. This is the impression I have of you. An honest truth is that the least biased among us realize its impossible for the human mind not to have bias. Once you realize this, you are more able to eliminate your most biased reactions, knowing that a lifetime of trying will never eliminate bias. Maybe this advice will help you in future dealings with creationists.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You evolutionists sometimes think that just by REPLYING you have made some sense, your answer did not deal with the question at all. It points to selection pressure on favorable alleles, which is actually MY point. Good point, if you could convince me that these types of substitutions do occur naturally you would have an argument that beneficial mice mutation can be observed, even if not in the mice study presented. How exactly does the substitution occur in nature?

What nested hierarchies? You fail to show me any. (or are you referring to the mole/reptile?)

Aaaah , so your whole theory is based on your ASSUMPTION that the original population did not travel far even over a million years. You are assuming the entire planet had a light landscape and so only light alleles existed. Mice can travel far in a thousand years, let alone a million years, logically all the alleles were not confined to that region. Your conclusions are a Huge assumption, and not a logical one either.

Is that all? I fail to see anything there that would favor long term hierarchies over design "groupings". But I keep saying this, and you keep claiming this great "nested hierarchy" argument without any backing. Why don't you show a tree of apes becoming humans and chimpanzees and orangutans? That would be more convincing.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The "observed mechanism of mutation" generally causes observed damage to organisms. Mutations are favorable only when genes are damaged, or when in laboratory conditions they mimic areas of the genome that are widely known to have multiple copies. Thus there is NO OBSERVED mechanism that could produce the differences observed between the chimp and human.

The lack of sequence variation could also be an indicator of a recent common ancestor for most of the dark mice (an allele that was introduced into the population) and all the dark mice in that area are descended from this outsider. You evolutionists seem to have a fixation with mutations. I guess you have to because you believe 95 percent of genomes are there through mutations so any flimsy argument is good enough for you. Its possible that brand new combinations of alleles are being created through variation via sexual reproduction, and any new favorable combination can be bred into a population. Thus what you see as definitely two mutations I see as two new allele combinations or new introductions from outside populations. You have not yet convinced me that these regions were always dry, isolated and always devoid of darkness (ash falls across the desert ) over your entire period. There is always a chance that during wetter or "darker soil" periods of history a darker breed of mice bred into the local population. These interbreeding moments between isolated populations of a species are commonly observed compared the rarity of favorable mutations. To assume a rare mutation rather than a common interbreeding moment reveals bias based on the evolutionary assumption that beneficial mutations were common.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Now would you REALLY reject your evolution hypothesis if some organisms were found to have features of unknown origin? You would not, you would retain faith in your beliefs and hope that some transitionary fossils would back up evolution one day.I love bats, they are truly unique, and have no known common ancestor with any other mammal. Where is the wing transition in the fossil record of mammals?The unique shoulder blade common ancestor? Why do mega-bats neural pathways resemble primates but microbats neural pathways do not? Does this mean the mega-bat has a common ancestor with a primate, yet the micro-bat does not? If they both evolved separately, where are their transitional fossils. The fossil evidence points towards a fully intact bat with no transitional forms. Evolution makes up fictional half-bats with no evidence for such a creature.Evolution is fiction based on a well written book by Darwin , who observed layers of proliferation (different taxonomic classes dominating different eras) and observed microevolution, and unfortunately related the two observations in a well written very logical manner. Just because his logical book became popular and is taught as fact does not make the theory of evolution empirically superior. You seem to have ignored my point that the debate will be solved by actual observations of true mutation rates, and comparing actual mutations with the two theories. ie with enough neutral studies one of the theories can become falsifiable. In the meantime us creationists have to endure evolutionary imagination when it comes to mythical transitional forms, making your theory temporarily unfalsifable. Its easy to make up a new tree every time genome sequencing proves an old tree false, and its pretty amusing to us creationists to see the evolutionist scramble to be the first to reclassify a n organism when genome sequencing shows the old tree to be false. Amusing, but sad for science.