The Origin of Novelty

Conserved elements over millions of years favors the ID view. Taq has been repetitive that an ID designer wouldn't design in groupings, Its obvious and observed that is what intelligent designers actually do. Others are saying there are exceptions like the penguin, bat, etc that do not conform to groupings and this somehow contradicts ID. Its obvious and observed that intelligent designers actually do make crossover products between their groupings as well as designing in groupings.Other than these two strawman arguments that are ironically opposite to eachother, have you got any evidence against ID? Boring strawman argument. Repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread. No clear example of any "nested tree" has been given which in any manner that contradicts the ID position. So your repetitive "nested tree" example is based on the louder more numerous kids shouting down the others in the nursery playground, unfortunately you have supplied no studies on intelligent designers that show that they do not design products in groupings. You have showed no examples of particular nested trees. (someone mentioned the reptilian mole - except the mole isn't even reptilian).

Could you kindly explain further what you mean by groups within groups. The Berkeley description of nested hierarchies did not seem to be describing it that way. Please give examples of the patterns you are referring to in order to clarify your meaning. Your stats still make no sense. There is no logic in looking at an entire population's mutations when trying to explain the retaining of mutations over 600 000 generations. I know, but abiogenesis has never been observed either. this thread is not about comparing theories on origins, its about how novel features came about. Can you prove the nested groupings reflect evolution rather than ID?You could start with the wiki page: This argument is based on evolutionary circular reasoning. Differences between genes are assumed to be mutations, and ratios are determined according to those assumptions. ID is not considered.

Is this an argument from nagging? Bombard with numerous repetitive questions, and hope he goes away? What you see is EXACTLY what a designer is observed to do. Make groupings, and make exceptions to the groupings as well. Just the fact that you guys are split between those who think its logical that there should be clear groupings and those that think its logical that there should only be unmatching organisms reveals that both are logical projections of what a designer would do, and vehicle manufacturing bears these same patterns.

The very place they chose to artificially amplify genes, is the very place that nature already has multiple gene copies in most organisms (areas of disease resistance/antibodies/toxin resistance). So it was no arbitrary position that they chose to amplify, they were copying nature's ability to amplify disease/toxin resistance through multiple copies. Now that I look at the study, it could merely be a reflection on nature's preference for multiple copies when under selective pressure. Just because nature SELECTS multiple gene copies for amplification under pressure, does not mean that nature PRODUCES multiple gene copies under pressure. I like this study, probably the first to support your position, providing the original population was devoid of duplications, which appears to be the case. I am cautious and will reserve my judgment as I look into this more, but thanks for the study. As you say neofunctionalization or changed genes is a possibility ( I hope you know how extremely rare this is, I have only ever heard of two cases, both being doubtful) and so even if not observed, it is theoretically possible that a duplicate coding gene can then gain a new function. Ok so you have thought about the possibility that the high copy numbers could have already been in nature. Have you got any evidence that they were not there already? No , those with a higher number delete down. Those with ten, delete down to 7 if there is no positive selection. Those with 5 , delete down to 3. My model does not have duplications, it has deletions, and not too many either. the same logic applies to humans. Yes, I did find out. Its the Middle East. I have yet to see your arguments against haplotypes reflecting diversity, and against the Middle East having the greatest diversity. My evidence is that through mitochrondial haplotype studies, the Middle East has the greatest diversity.Its only under evolutionary assumptions that the number of mutations in a population relates to how old that population is. Haplogroup diversity makes more sense.High-throughput sequencing of complete human mtDNA genomes from the Philippines - PMC I did read it, just couldn't remember all the details. Honestly, if they don't say how similar the genes are then its not supporting evidence for evolution. The one with two genes seem far fitter, it seems that the fish with one gene is the one struggling with new and imperfect adaptations. ie the SAS gene has adapted some antifreeze ability to cope with the lack of the antifreeze gene. Anyway its not conclusive in any manner.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

1) From Science and the Bible, both, we have evidence of three Racial Stocks emerging from Africa at exactly the same time that all other humanoids were becoming extinct. This is an important set of correspondences, that both religion and science agree on the basics:A All other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years agoB Modern Homo sapiens appeared 40,000 years ago in three flavors some call Hamites, Japhethians, and Shemians, while science referred to them as Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians.C Modern studies of race by geneticists support that these early initial three racial stocks differentiated into seven genetically identifiable groups living today.D Genetic evidence indicates that the original three racial stocks that lead to the seven kinds of people alive today are all related to just on man, presumably a Noah, who lived 40,000 years ago.This is a lot of evidence in support of ancient reports that tell the same story.2) Yes, Paleontology refers to the 22 humanoid creatures that they list as the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent to modern man as humans.
They were.
They were just not as evolved as we are today, but they walked upright, had their thumbs like our own, and every cell in their body had 23 Chromosomes, including one pair that was actually two sets fused together.The ancient writings that report the "flood" out-of-Africa, occurring 40 thousand years ago, itemized and enumerated descriptions of the 22 humans which went extinct. In that listing many points are in line with our own discoveries and knowledge about those previous 22 links in our ascent.Your argument is an excellent example of how ID and YECs ought better align their arguments for Scripture with the Scientific Facts rather than fudge by 10 the time lines as you attempt to so do here.

Your are right, that Science has no concrete evidence to support Abiogenesis,...... but you are wrong not to agree with them on this Spontaneous Generation which was that Act-of-God where he said, "Let the earth bring forth (bacteria, i.e.; NOTE: the Hebrew word is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), "grass," (from which condition shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Note: The Hebrew word actually does mean grass and does not mean "first sprouts of life on earth."You've told that non-truth several times. It doesn't mean bacteria.Besides, bacteria were not the first life on earth anyway.

That is neither a claim of any academic source or found in the bible. Again, these are not claims of science and there is no ancient writing that reports a flood out of Africa occurring 40,000 years ago.

So you agree that ID does not predict a nested hierarchy? That seems to be what you are saying. We observe that intelligent designs do NOT fall into nested hierarchies. Cars do not fall into nested hierarchies. Computers do not fall into nested hierarchies. Airplanes do not fall into nested hierarchies. That is not what we see with life, however. We do not see designs shared across similar functions. We observe that bats share more features with whales than they do with birds even though bats and birds fill a very similar function. Bats have a tidal lung system with a diaphragm just like whales, but completely unlike birds. Bats are placental and produce milk just like whales, and completely unlike birds. Bats have three middle ear bones just like whales, but unlike birds. Even the structure of the wings between bats and birds are not shared.Nested hierarchies are stupid from an ID perspective because they prevent you from using design elements where they would make the most sense. They prevent you from mixing and matching design elements where they would be the most useful for no other reason than to make it look like life evolved. We are not crediting you with these arguments, so it is not a strawman argument.

Hi, Mindspawn. Obviously, we're not thinking on the same wavelengths here. Let me see if I can figure out why we're not seeing eye-to-eye on this.The way I understand it, the Designer designed a functioning biosphere by creating a whole bunch of organisms. The Designer had to make sure the biosphere was properly balanced, in order to maintain its stability over the long term. So, the Designer had to purpose-build organisms to fit all the different ecological niches.So, when I think of Intelligent Design, I imagine the Designer sitting down in a garage with an unlimited assortment of parts, and saying, "Now I need a baramin of apex predators. What traits would an apex predator need?"Then I see that, in one case, the Designer apparently needed to create a baramin of cursorial, terrestrial herbivores. So, the Designer took a bird's heart, a bird's brain, a bird's backbone, a bird's ear bones, a bird's legs, a bird's feathers, a bird's wings, a bird's beak, a bird's eggs, and a bird's lungs, and made an ostrich.In another case, the Designer apparently needed to create a baramin of nocturnal, flying insectivores. So, He took a mammal's heart, a mammal's brain, a mammal's backbone, a mammal's ear bones, a mammal's legs, a mammal's hair, a mammal's arms, a mammal's teeth, a mammal's placenta, and a mammal's lungs, and made a bat.This baffles me. I don't understand why the Designer would do this. If all those bird characteristics are specially-designed for flight performance, why didn't the Designer use any of them when purpose-building a flying baramin? And why did the Designer use all of them when purpose-building a non-flying baramin?To me, it's like the Designer needed to build a car, so He used an airplane's wings, ailerons, retractable landing gear, pressurized cabin, rudder, propeller, yoke and flight instruments to build it, even though He already had all the necessary car parts right there in His garage.From a design perspective, it's an extremely odd methodology. It confuses me that such a strange pattern would be so prevalent, when it makes so very little sense.Edited by Blue Jay, : Grammar edit

Evidence please. The yeast chugged along just fine with an exact copy of human cytochrome c. This is also unsupported. You need evidence to back this claim. That doesn't explain why we see a nested hierarchy. Cars have similarities, but they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Then your arguments are pretty meaningless.

You still have not explained why shared features should fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true given that shared features in known human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, nor is there any design reason why they should. But that is not what we see. Features are not grouped by similar functions. That is the whole point. Squid and fish exist in the very same environments and niches. Squid and fish both have a camera type of eye. However, the actual designs of those eyes are completely different. They are not shared. Instead, they fall into groups based on evolutionary history, NOT SIMILAR FUNCTION. Another empty argument. You have yet to show that feathers and three middle ear bones would not work. So why do penguins and ostriches share more features with a hummingbird than they do with terrestrial mammals?

Since when? Show me a set of human designs that falls into a nested hierarchy.

The topic is the origin of novelty in an evolutionary context. Creationist views on how novelty might come about or anything else are off-topic. I don't mind if the digression continues for a couple more pages or so, but if it needs more discussion than that maybe someone could propose a new thread, or provide a link to an appropriate existing thread.

This is more a response for Mindspawn than for you Taq, but I really wanted to hit on this point for Mindspawn, because his analogy is absolutely terrible.Mindspawn, you keep claiming that cars fall into a nested heirarchy, but this is definitely not the case. You speak of specific "types" of cars, such as the SUVs, the Trucks, the Sedans, the Off-road vehicles. Then, you proceed to mention crossover cars, where two "types" of cars are brought together. However, unlike in biological systems worldwide, when a car manufacturer is creating a crossover car, they use the optimal system designed for the purpose they would like the crossover to have. Imagine them combining the features of an SUV and an off-road vehicle. The goal is to create a crossover with the size and power of an SUV, but with the ability to go off-road close to equal of a Jeep. Would the car manufacturer begin to design an entirely new system of four wheel drive, or utilize the system that has already been proven to work? As seen in any crossover, humans or intelligent designers reuse designs that have already been proven in the field. They take the extant four-wheel drive system and install it into the new crossover. This leaves the SUVs power because the engine has not changed, but adds the four wheel capability exactly similar to that of the Off-Road vehicles. It is the same system, not a redesign.Now, let's look at your intelligent designer. The cephalopod eye was extant long before the mammalian eye came around. Also, the design of this eye does not have the blind spot flaw that is evident in the mammalian eye. So, when this intelligent designer decided to create the human "Baramin", he or she decided, unlike a human car designer, to completely redesign the eye. Not only did he or she decide to do a redesign, but he or she chose to redesign the eye to non-optimum standards. Why, would an intelligent designer, creating a crossover (like your car analogy) redesign a system to make it worse? Your own analogy shows the issues within ID and with "Baramins".As to the topic of novel features and functions, I believe that you have been shown substantial evidence that these mutations occur and I think you even buy into them. You simply have to cover your tracks by saying that they were already present in the genome because saying otherwise would go against your beliefs. You have been shown the Pocket Mice, the E. Coli, and the evidence for the evolution of the middle ear. Now, you must remember that we have only been focusing on evolution for a mere .0000045% of the history of the Earth and .0000056% of the time life has been present. And, in that time we have already shown that mutations occur, and we can provide evidence of this fact. However, no one has yet to discover a mechanism that stops mutation at a certain point, other than the weeding out done by selection. So, looking at the precentage of time we've been looking, plus no known stopping mechanism we can see that this data can be extrapolated, whether or not it defies your beliefs.The last thing I want to ask of you Mindspawn is that what would you consider anti-evidence of ID? I told you that for evolution finding a barrier to further mutation would be a good example of something that would throw a wrench in evolutionary theory (although I think the entire theory could be reworked to incorporate this new fact, although with limitations). So, what would falsify ID? You are discussing an all-powerful being, is there anything that this creator could not do? If not, then who on Earth cares about it, because there is nothing we can test for. Why? Because every answer can come down to, well, the all-powerful creator wanted to make it look like a nested heirarchy or the all-powerful creator wanted humans to be limited in some way so redesigned the eye to achieve this. When your cause can do anything, you have zero predictive power.