Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

The evo-devo answer would likely be that nature goes with what works, not intentionally, but not randomly either.They might be inclined to point out that animals, such as sharks, have few gradations which, in turn, shows that the current morphology of sharks, with all of it contrivances and adaptations, are well suited for its environment. Thus, there is nothing that would necessitate a change in allelic frequency.As for the creationist/ID'ist viewpoint, they might say that it just further supports that large mutational changes act adversely in the wild as aberrations that nature weeds out, rather than fixes in a population.I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.However, something that both evo's and non-evo's agree upon is a new body part wouldn't just sprout out of thin air. From the evolutionary perspective, any new morphological changes might first occur in homeobox mutations that started out innocuously and inconspicuously. Later on down the line, the organism learns to co-opt this abnormality in useful ways.But from the perspective of the design inference, we have to consider that in order for such an extravagance to develop, first there must have been some mutation which nature never intended. A proto-wing or a proto-fin, or what have you, would first have to have been so crude so as to actually impede and inhibit the organisms survival-- so much so that it would hardly make sense that it ever gets from point A to point B, let alone point A to point Z.And surely if such an evolution took place, as surely it would have to have happened for every single creature we see today at some point in pre-history, there should be transitional evidence of such gradations. So much so that laboratories, universities, and natural history museums would be littered with just such creatures in a timely, ordered sequence.The only other alternative is a "Hopeful Monster" theory, where one organism inexplicably births another so dissimilar as to give no evidence that one came from the other. But no pragmatic person would ever actually posit such a fantasy.Lastly, does the fact that no creature has ever been documented to evolve in the way you've described evidence that it is impossible? No. But at the same time, the mere fact that no examples exist, given the incomprehensibly voluminous number of organisms that have graced the earth lends far more credence that such things do not take place.Therefore, it seems far more reasonable that organisms stay within a niche because they were created in a specific way, rather than amoeba's being the progenitors of men.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

quote:

---

As for the creationist/ID'ist viewpoint, they might say that it just further supports that large mutational changes act adversely in the wild as aberrations that nature weeds out, rather than fixes in a population.

---

............ Always. Its an argument against the assertion of abundant beneficial mutations, which evolution needs in order to be a viable theory. I'm not understanding your objection, much less understand why think it is a departure from the ID paradigm. They have always asserted this. I certainly don't believe God micromanages every aspect of life, nor have I ever alluded to thinking anything along those lines. So I'm unclear on what you are actually objecting to.

quote:

---

I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.

---

Its really quite simple what I mean. If avian are the progeny of therapods, what actually caused the introduction of wings? And what would it look in humans, should it happen to us as well, being that we could all benefit from it in a positive way? It was just a real simple question that didn't warrant your holier-than-thou response. Lets set the record straight here Ned. Why are you so totally combative to everything I say? How much more non-aggressive could my post have been, that you think I deserve some kind of lecturing from you, of all people?!?!You have no actual refutation.... Just shy of, never. Yet you speak with such condescension as if you have any clout. When you respond next, I would like for you to present an intelligible treatise with some kind of actual refutation.We're here to debate and pass ideas from one another to gain insight. So lets do that in a courteous manner. The conversations will go a lot more smoothly.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

My gosh people... Why do some of you treat me as if I just assaulted your grandmothers? I think my post was pretty unassuming. I'm just throwing out ideas and theories in the same fashion as everyone else.And you, RAZD, in particular, used to deal with me kindly. That all changed when you flew off the handle with the Deism thread. Can we just have a nice conversation without all of the mean spirited tactics? The Hopeful Monster theory was propagated by Dr. Richard Goldshmidt, an evolutionist, not a creationist.As for the mutations, there must have been a large number of qualifying mutations, in long sequences, if they were to have been necessary to be fixed in a population. What then was the selective advantage?These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to represent something beneficial-- at least in theory. But, the horizontal gene transfer from one species to another is not information newly introduced, right?-- only that its been reshuffled with minor variations due to mutation. How then would such a small allele frequency be fixed? It must have been a considerable mutation, seems to me.To demonstrate evolution in some appreciable way, shouldn't you at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory? What demonstrable evidence exists in the annals of the evolutionary theory to support this?

quote:

---

I too have wondered this, supposing that evolution were true, being that all quadra and bipedal animals could certainly make use of something like wings.

---

This is another typical two-step. See, when someone mentions that Coelacanth have changed very little, they say its evidence that nature does what works, even if it is not intentional. But you say that somehow doesn't apply in reverse. If avian somehow made great use of wings, and nature has even produced crude wings for gliding in some mammals, reptiles, and fish, then why didn't other species of the same Kingdom keep these traits as well?Thus, you just invent ad hoc reasons that sound plausible as a way of justifying something that is clearly hypocritical and nonsensical. No kidding, which is why my question was asking why all of the proceeding species didn't retain these traits. Obviously you don't know. No one does. But I trust that you are seeing that you can't just make grand assumptions only to come to no actual conclusion. I have made the argument before, and I see it as insoluble from an evolutionary standpoint, but I echo again.Even with large populations and millions of years to back its play, there are not enough possible mutations to propel evolution. Think about it. Eventually they will reach a maximum capacity, and that number is far too little to account for the diversity of life here on here.If a typical gene has approximately 1000 base pairs, how many substitutions of a single base pair for another are there that will cause a change in an amino acid? Even the staunchest of evolutionists concede that generally less than one mutation in a thousand is beneficial, so that about two of these substitutions will be beneficial. That couldn't possibly be enough to account for the diversity.

quote:

---

And surely if such an evolution took place, as surely it would have to have happened for every single creature we see today at some point in pre-history, there should be transitional evidence of such gradations. So much so that laboratories, universities, and natural history museums would be littered with just such creatures in a timely, ordered sequence.

---

Because this would end the controversy. What evolutionist wouldn't want this kind of physical evidence? You'd probably soil yourself if such unambiguous evidence existed-- and I don't say that condescendingly. I think if you were to make such a discovery, it would be as grand as discovering the Arc of the Covenant would be to an archaeologist.

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

quote:

---

But from the perspective of the design inference, we have to consider that in order for such an extravagance to develop, first there must have been some mutation which nature never intended. A proto-wing or a proto-fin, or what have you, would first have to have been so crude so as to actually impede and inhibit the organisms survival-- so much so that it would hardly make sense that it ever gets from point A to point B, let alone point A to point Z.

---

No, not at all. In fact, you neglected to actually answer the question. Obviously if avian descended from therapods, the wing must have developed slowly- lest you believe in a hopeful monster.

None of these questions can be answered beyond pure speculation because there is zero evidence of any such transition to begin with. At most, they look at bones from therapods, to modern birds, and to Archaeopteryx, and come up with some version of events that makes sense to them.Surely, though, you understand that numerous successive gradations must taken place. Where are the remains? Why don't we have any fossils of any creatures in the midst of transition? Why are they all fully formed?

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

No, it isn't. Why do you think they call it a "living fossil"? And even supposing it is, it still wouldn't detract from the initial argument. Prior to their rediscovery, it was believed that Coelacanth were one of the first aquatic creatures that experimented with walking. The claim (just by looking at its lobbed fins) was that it was essentially a walking fish. But as we unambiguously know now, that's a complete fabrication spawned from little more than guesswork.So even supposing the modern Coelacanth is vastly different from the fossilized ones, we know that assertions about their "walking" is a total fabrication. If the Coelacanth were never rediscovered, this kind of imaginative "fact" would have gone on unchecked and you'd be none the wiser. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci