The Origin of Novelty

You really are a troll aren’t' you? Either that, or just incredibly uneducated.Are you seriously not aware that the melanin that 'white' skin can produce is a very limited function and takes time? A family friend of mine got a job in Liberia in West Africa in the 1980's. On the second day out (before he'd started his new job) he decided to do a bit of sunbathing. He lay on his front for what should have been 15 minutes but fell asleep. He awoke two mere hours later in pain. The pain turned excruciating and he was shipped back to the UK (the Liberian hospitals being poorly equipped to deal with third-degree burns) and he had more than half a gallon of blister serum taken out of his back over the next 48 hours. He became permanently scarred and ultimately died of melanoma 8 years on.That's your 'melanin producing ability’ in albino skin for you. It is insignificant compared to that of black skin, I've heard it said that there isn't an adult Australian (not counting the aborigines of course) who don't know someone who has been lost to skin cancer - I can't verify the truth of that statement - but there's a reason things like that get around!You see - evolution often reverses or 'partially' reverses scenarios depending on the effects of natural selection in a setting. i.e. the crap-wired eyes of mammals where the cat evolves the tapetum - a reflecting layer to concentrate light for dark adaptation. If the eyes in mammals (indeed vertebrates in general) were like those of the cephalopods then dark adaption would be already there from aeons ago - cephalopods live in deep very very dark waters - they cracked it before vertebrates got going....I keep asking (and you keep ignoring) why an 'intelligent designer' would fuck up like that.And here we have another example - the albino mutation losing ability to produce melanin - and generations later when albino alleles become fixed in the gene pool - a secondary mutation that allows back 'some' melanin production. I assume you are white skinned. If you think your melanin production is a match for the African sun then be my guest - go there, strip off to the waist (without sun protectors as our ancestors had no such thing) and see how your melanin production helps you (why did your God ‘fuck up’ with white skin — when he’d already cracked the melanoma issue by ‘inventing’ black skin? —
Don't forget to have an air ambulance facility standing by to take you to the nearest intensive care burns unit!We are back to selling cars where only some get air bags whilst the rest get a spongy vest for the driver instead!! Madness Earth’s ecosystem is full of examples of suboptimal partially reversed engineering fuck-ups —over and over — the result of successive changes in environmental conditions favour different mutations that come along, features moving in one direction, only to change backwards in another setting. Animals who had eyes, losing them when they became dark cave dwellers such as invertebrates like cave-dwelling millipedes — or olms. But still retaining the vestiges of the old features. Why would an intelligent designer give olms (cave-dwelling amphibians) ‘eyes that can’t see’?Janet & John's idiot guide to mutation and natural selection:1. Because chemistry is NOT exactly reproducible (i.e. it is stochastic) mutations are INEVITABLE
2. Mutations give rise to phenotypic changes (changes you can see in the individual - such as albinism).
3. Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or advantageous UTTERLY DEPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT SURROUNDS THAT INDIVIDUAL (this bit in capitals as people like you and Faith seem to have continuous brain farts on this point - it really is secondary science stuff this!!).
4. The advantageous mutations (for that environment) will get 'fixed' in the gene pool at the expense of the allele(s) it replaces - purely as a result of natural selection favouring it IN THAT PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT.
5. The deleterious mutations (for that environment) will be selected against and will dwindle (IN THAT ENVIRONMENT) - purely as a result of natural selection NOT favouring it IN THAT PARTICUALR ENVIRONMENT.Only lethal mutations (those that interfere with early structural development of important systems i.e. embryonic developments can be said to be definitely deleterious in ALL circumstances (the individual ‘dies’ as an embryo). In nearly all cases where birth occurs then novel features DO have particular environments that can be advantageous. There are simply so many environments out that that this will always be the case. Whether the novel feature of an individual finds the environmental niche that will ‘support’ its novelty is another matter. The Galapagos Islands of 16 very different ecosystems are one of nature’s best examples of experiments in evolution. The species divergence is incredible — and so are the very different conditions from island to island — go read a book or (better still) watch a video on it (UK’s greatest living celebrity naturalist David Attenborough has produced a fascinating series on the Galapagos ecosystem).The pattern of life on earth with its nested hierarchy, pattern of fossils, pattern of DNA, pattern of population demography, loss of features (correctly wired eyes) followed by partial regain by some other method (development of the tapetum), possession of suboptimal often dangerous engineering concoctions (shared tube to breathe and eat, recurrent laryngeal nerve, appendix in humans) ALL are explained exactly by that 5 point sequence above. There is and never has been ANY other even close explanation by any other hypothesis WHATSOEVER.And this is why the ToE is taught is science classes in schools to the next generation of children. The education of our next generation is FAR too important to fuck about with. The only science theories that can be taught are those that tally with the evidence. That's why we teach Newtonian/Einsteinian celestial mechanics in physics, the chemistry of carbon bonding in organic chemistry and the ToE in biology.Unless and until you can come up with something that at least matches the ToE in terms of fitting with THE EVIDENCE then you are 'pissing in the wind'. We do not waste our children's future on teaching nonsense that doesn't tally with the real world.Endex!PS: I’ve decided that your ‘glimmer of insight’ from your previous post was indeed ‘just random words strung together’ that looked on first reading that you might have gained insight, but in light of the post to which I’m replying obviously isn’t.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Indeed!! Everything appears to be 'completely beyond you'. Are you seriously telling us that you don't know that fossils can and are dated by the geological layers that they are interspaced in (layers that can be dated by several methods)?When scientists line up a row of skulls for you to look at they are NOT placed in a random order, but in order of 'geological age'.It should be obvious to you that example after example shows gradual progression from 'what was' to 'what is now'. To throw this out first you would have to 'somehow' break the dating of these specimens. Do you deny geological dating techniques, along with mutation and NS and god knows what else to maintain your a priori belief system?Regarding the fossil record - are you aware of how fossils form, their incredible rarity due to special conditions needed, and the fact that the vast majority of Earths total fossils are still undiscovered - locked in kilometres of sedimentary rock sequences?To expect a 'good fossil record for all lines' is frankly a childish stance. Take the giraffe - creationists love to bring that one up - specifically mentioning that there are no precursors - showing 'growing' necks in the fossil record. Well - what environment does the giraffe (and presumably its predecessors) live in? - Africa savannah grassland. How likely is it that such animals get to fossilise? Have you ever seen films of the Serengeti for example? Food is at a premium, animals even slightly unaware of their environment are quickly taken by numerous predators. Sick, old or infirm animals are ruthlessly culled and eaten. The small remains are cleaned by vultures and other scavengers. Very very few of these animals are left at all to be fossilised.Then on top of that fossilisation itself needs very special conditions. Surely you didn't think an animal lies down on the ground, dies and turns to a fossil did you? Very unique physical and geochemical conditions are needed for this to happen. So the miniscule (for that read virtually none) grassland individuals that do die, then need an incredibly rare fossilising environment, and then finally if that did manage to happen, we humans need to have discovered that fossil which could be buried in kilometres of rock sediments.That we have the fossils we do have is frankly amazing - and only possible because of the zillions of critters that the long history of evolution on earth has afforded us.Before you start criticising a subject of which you patently have only a child's knowledge you may find it pays you dividends to read some basic literature or enrol on a basic science course - it's very clear so far that you have done neither, preferring instead to take your learning off creationist websites. Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Which is why scientists use multi-buttressing dating techniques. I presume you do realise that professional palaeontologists know when and how to apply the various dating techniques, how they understand control variables, and when a technique can or cannot be applied, and the margin of error implicit in the procedure? - In other words they know how to apply their 'profession'? The science of geochemistry is very detailed and the practitioners are very experienced in matching fossils to overlaying sediment/rock chemistry. Can I check what qualifications you have to dismiss their work out of hand on this site? Are you a qualified palaeontologist? A geochemist? A radio-dating expert? If you are none of these why should anyone listen to your dismissals? More whining of a layperson! Have you formally criticised these findings, written papers or conclusions by those that publish in the field — i.e. written articles to professional publications? If not, why not? (If your answer is "I don't have the depth of knowledge to critique" then you have your answer). Why do none (and I mean none) of your creationist ilk similarly criticise in the peer-review system (preferring instead to reserve their scorn for their own self-policed creationist websites). Are you not just a little suspicious here? Unwarranted assumption that shows your ignorance I’m afraid. Please provide evidence that the scientific method is not rigorously followed. Are you aware that the Theory of Evolution has such overwhelming multi-disciplined evidence for it, that it is one of the very strongest scientific theories we have. Eh??? It was ME that asked you the above question - remember? For it is clear to me you have little idea of the process of fossilisation and rarity of event. Mammals evolved from therapsids which were 'mouse-like' such as the Megazostrodon. They were hardly 'savannah type herbivores. It is highly likely that due to their small size and vulnerability that they hid in burrows or underground habitats. Fossilisation of animals like this should be more likely than a large savannah herbivore. Furthermore, small rodent- type reptile-mammals living underground are more likely to have their remains go un-scavenged and are more liable to flooding by local floods in a process more conducive to eventual fossilisation than a large savannah herbivore - you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You can't just say 'mammal' and expect a giraffe in its habitat to face the same fossilisation chances as a small mouse living underground for much of its time. Please describe your criteria for a 'transitional fossil'

The detailed find description, error margins, and scientific assumptions of Lucy - AND ALL OTHER AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS SPECIMENS - YOU DID KNOW THERE ARE MORE THAN LUCY DIDN'T YOU? are laid out in the peer-reviewed professional journals. I have to say that if it comes to choosing between professional scientists who lay out every miniscule detail of their work for criticism, or by lying creationists who routinely make shit up for their unprofessional junk websites - then for me there really is no contest. No you don't need to shut up - you need to address the professionals who do the field work and make the scientific claims that they do....but you won't do that will you - you'd be taken apart by professionals who deal in scientific detail that you don't know exist let alone comprehend.Ditto for those who run and contribute to creationists websites. Why do we never see these guys writing critical reviews of field-work findings and submitting to professional journals? Answer - because underneath they know they would be taken apart and made to look the know-nothings they are - it's obvious.....give me any other possible reason that a creationist with a 'beef' against some evolution announcement in the journals would hold back and not submit. Or better still - give me some actual examples of creationists attacking evolution WITHIN THE PEER-REVIEW SYSTEM, not their own propaganda enriched websites. I don't recall you providing a mechanism whereby mutation + Natural Selection cannot lead to species progression. After all, phenotypes come from genotypes, and genotypes are just organic chemistry arrangements - and organic chemistry is stochastic (meaning it is not possible to reproduce long organic chains with perfect accuracy - that's just the nature of the beast as far as chemistry is concerned). As soon as it is realised that stochastic chemistry rules the way in which coding for organisms come about then it's like a line of dominoes falling:1. Stochastic chemistry means mutations are INEVITABLE
2. Mutations mean that individuals are NECESSARILY different from each other within a population.
3. Different individuals mean that some INEVITABLY will survive (and therefore pass on their unique qualities to their offspring to the detriment of others in the gene pool.
4. Survival until breeding age and passing on those qualities means the EVOLUTION IS INEVITABLE. Once the first domino (stochastic chemistry) goes down there is no mechanism to stop the rest.Go one ....be a devil - provide the mechanism that stops the dominoes dropping....go on son, get your Nobel prize - do what no individual, scientist or otherwise, has done in 150 years of trying - find a mechanism that trashes the ToE....even Bolder Dash and Faith declined to take me up on this one....make your mark - be a creationist hero! (by the way - I mean a proper mechanism we can examine - not 'what ifs') And yet a key reptilian feature was present - it held its legs splayed out instead of underneath it - classic reptilian stance. Presumably you don't think this counts in your world of 'no transitional fossils exist' since all the fossil examples of megazostrodon would have been flattened by kilometres of rock and this would have 'splayed the poor critters legs' Did I say that megazostrodon was the FIRST mammal - or perhaps it's more likely that your can't read posts correctly....try again. And yet you completely ignore that range of hominid skulls presented by Coyote above. A sequence clearly moving towards greater encephalisation - as predicted by the ToE if we evolved from earlier hominids, and found in fossil evidence.And as for 'half reptile, half mammal....is that how you think evolution would produce something. The head full of scales perhaps whilst it's arse is covered by fur?You have no concept of the huge time frame involved or that miniscule changes are all that’s needed on that continuous passage of time.Lets try an example outside of biology as an analogy (apologies in advance if it doesn’t hit the mark for everyone — analogies only go so far in illustration).The distance between New York and LA is around 2780 miles. There are 1760 yards (approx one large human stride) to a mile. Therefore there are around 4,892,800 yards (or 4.9 million to say roughly in English) strides between New York and LA.We start in the middle of New York. You have a camera. You look around in each direction and take a snapshot, of the street junctions that you might be near, of shops, restaurants, phone booths, trash cans....everything in your 360 degree of vision from your stance on that New York street.You then move one yard. This represents one generation on (and I'll discuss later how that is hopelessly under-represented in evolution’s timescales). You now take pictures around you again - 360 degrees again. What has changed in that one stride? Looking at the two sets of pictures you will be able to see an oh-so slight altering of perspective from that one stride - but it will be oh so very slight as to be almost unnoticeable.And so another stride and then another.....eventually you reach the outer suburbs of New York - but (to quote creationists)...it's still New York!!And on we go, stride after stride. No one stride looks virtually any different from the one that went before it - or after it. But, imperceptibly the landscape changes, the city becomes the suburbs, and then slowly it gives way to countryside ....but oh so very very slowly.4.9 million strides later we are in LA. At no point have you ever got a picture of 'half of New York and half of LA'. And yet the journey was indeed of that transition. 4.9 million sets of photographs, laid end to end - any one set all but indistinguishable from either the ones that went before or went after. Your cry of half and half, is like wanting to go into the middle of the photos and finding one with the Empire State Building sat side by side with Sunset Strip.As I said - analogies only go so far, so if other posters on here think I’ve stretched the analogy somewhat then fair enough, but sometimes examples away from the field in question helps in visualisation of the topic under discussion.And now for the real inadequacy of the above scenario:Richard Dawkins in his "The Ancestors Tale" calculated roughly 195 million generations between human and (ray-finned) fishes. Undoubtedly the estimate will have a generous error margin implicit in this sort of calculation but our example of striding above, was only 4.9 million strides. To stride out 195 million would require journeying over 110,000 miles (or driving from New York to LA 40 times — picking one stride in 195 million is also 14 times more unlikely than to hit the UK lottery which itself is a one in 14 million chance which goes some way to showing what a huge number 195 million actually is).It’s a sobering thought that maybe my 195 millionth great grandfather (and grandmother) was a ray-finned fish!!!Creationists simply have no idea of the vast timescales available for evolution to work, nor the subtlety of change that such a timescale allows.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.