Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 871 (689730)
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


I believe one of the biggest failures of the evolution camp is their inability to elucidate any plausible chain of events that leads to a new novel feature, which can be seen in modern animals.
The theory about how new novel features have arisen, such as eyes, or noses, or internal organs, always are explained as taking thousands, millions of years, and thus are not easy to see. But in order for this to make sense, you need to propose a realistic scenario of how this can occur. I think your side severely lacks the ability to do so.
All of the arguments against irreducible complexity propose suggesting that any new novel feature which appears irreducibly complex, could easily have had another usage in an earlier time. So all these features were at one time some other useful feature. But at some point you can't always use the excuse that it was something else, at some point you must be able to say what an original use was, before it was adapted from some other use. What was a nose before it was a nose? How did it start. How did a hand start?
If you say that it was a useless mutation, that eventually gained usefulness and then caused an increase in survivability, I think it is incumbent on your side to give a example, a reasonable pathway.
Everyone of these mutations that started out as harmless defects can't have only happened in the past. If this is the pathway to all animal features, the mutations must be continuing today. What are some plausible examples of how this could happen in modern animals, starting from scratch?
Edited by Admin, : Change title from "Plausible Examples" to "The Origin of Novelty".

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2013 9:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 4 by caffeine, posted 02-04-2013 10:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 10:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2013 11:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 5:02 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 88 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2013 10:23 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 100 by Jon, posted 02-09-2013 4:37 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 567 by kofh2u, posted 02-27-2013 3:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 871 (689732)
02-04-2013 9:08 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Origin of Novelty thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 3 of 871 (689733)
02-04-2013 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
What are some plausible examples of how this could happen in modern animals, starting from scratch?
The useless skin "webs" that some mutant humans have between their toes could be seen as a plausible example of a potential first step towards the webbed feet of semi-aquatic animals, if that's the kind of thing you mean.
Bolder-dash writes:
I believe one of the biggest failures of the evolution camp is their inability to elucidate any plausible chain of events that leads to a new novel feature, which can be seen in modern animals.
The theory about how new novel features have arisen, such as eyes, or noses, or internal organs, always are explained as taking thousands, millions of years, and thus are not easy to see. But in order for this to make sense, you need to propose a realistic scenario of how this can occur. I think your side severely lacks the ability to do so.
I like your use of the words "plausible" and "realistic". Don't you agree that any hypothetical scenario involving demonstrably real processes, like mutation and selection, easily meets the plausibility standards of those who believe that the source of animal features is magic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-04-2013 10:40 AM bluegenes has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 4 of 871 (689736)
02-04-2013 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


I'm not sure exactly what you want us to produce. You mentioned, for example, the eye, but plausible hypotheticals for the evolution of eyes from scratch have been proposed innumerable times, and obviously these aren't good enough for you. All that you need to begin with is a cell which does something in response to light exposure. Lots of chemical reactions happen in response to light, so it's not difficult to imagine this appearing, either by pure accident or as a side effect of a cell specialised to do something else. Where do you see the problem in the standard hypothetical accounts of the evolution of eyes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 5 of 871 (689737)
02-04-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bluegenes
02-04-2013 9:56 AM


Ok, so, webbed feet, let's start off simple.
So, what kind of semi-aquatic creatures do you have in mind, that were descended from a species of animal with no skin between their toes? Do you imagine that there were mutations of excess skin in all sorts of parts of their body, like say their scrotum, or forehead, and that the ones with the excess skin in the fingers got a head start?
Are you at all concerned that if those who don't believe in evolution see that the only example you can imagine is a mutation for webbed feet to explain how web feet came into being, that they will be even more skeptical that your side has ever really thought about this problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2013 9:56 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2013 12:28 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 12:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 871 (689738)
02-04-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


Is this going to be one of those threads where a creationist has the evolutionists try to prove evolution to them while they do everything they can to avoid accepting it? One where no amount of evidence is ever going to matter and its just a game for you by having a bunch of people taking shots that you get to waste our time defending yourself against? Because if it is, then I don't want to play. But lets see.
Here's a picture showing various possible stages of the evolution of the eye:
Light sensitive cells can help primitive species avoid danger and move towards food, obvious advantages. The other various developments build on those and make them more advantageous. What kinds of things would you like to learn about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 871 (689739)
02-04-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


One of the best understood evolutionary pathways is the eye. The website for Encyclopedia Britannica has a very nice graphic showing various stages in the process, including an example of a currently living organism for each stage.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 871 (689740)
02-04-2013 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 10:40 AM


You beat me to it, but mine has specific, extant examples, so there.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:48 AM subbie has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 871 (689741)
02-04-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
02-04-2013 10:41 AM


You beat me to it, but mine has specific, extant examples, so there.
Ha! That was the other picture I was considering linking to. And I chose the one I did because it was more general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 10:41 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 871 (689743)
02-04-2013 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 10:48 AM


Well, since he was talking about specific examples, I figured I'd try to head that one off right at the start. Now he can't claim we're just making stuff up, unless he just ignores the evidence.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 11 of 871 (689744)
02-04-2013 11:06 AM


Ok, the good old eye, now we are getting somewhere (I will try to ignore that you all seem to have not really thought about the problem yourself, but are just going to rely on things you have read or seen printed online).
But let's look at this more seriously than the sort of canned explanation that is popular amongst evolutionists. Ok, so we start with a mutation for a light sensitive skin patch. Have you ever seen or heard of any modern animals getting mutations for light sensitive skin patches? If you have, do these like sensitive mutations occur in any part of the body? And do these light sensitive skin patch mutations get passed on hereditarily like in the adult species? For instance, if an animal got a light sensitive skin patch on its shin, would this then be passed on to its offspring, also in the shin? Would it have a similar size and shape?
Because these are the bare minimum requirements it would seem we would need to get started right?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 11:09 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 12:43 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2013 12:10 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 12 of 871 (689745)
02-04-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
02-04-2013 11:06 AM


Ok, so this is going to be a thread where you ask for examples of evolutionary pathways, we give them and you ask for more detail between each step. Goalpost moving 101, standard creo play, nothing interesting here.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-04-2013 11:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-04-2013 11:18 AM subbie has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 871 (689748)
02-04-2013 11:14 AM


Moderator Request
I'd like to request that the evolutionists treat this inquiry seriously and not try to pigeonhole it into what in their view were past insincere attempts.
Evolutionists must concede that they have no direct evidence of the origin of novelty. What they have is evidence that evolution produces diversity and adaptation, and from this they infer how evolution might produce novelty. The problem I think being posed is how close evolutionists can come to providing direct evidence of evolution producing novelty by using examples. The strongest examples would include evidence consistent with blind evolutionary processes as opposed to purposeful design.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2013 12:41 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 12:46 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 14 of 871 (689749)
02-04-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
02-04-2013 11:09 AM


subbie,
Read the first sentence, I said elucidate a plausible chain of events. (BTW elucidate means to make clear. )
Now, just posting a bunch of photos of a shallow eye, and then a deeper eye, and then suddenly a liquid filled eye, is not even closer to actually contemplating the problem, or explaining a chain of events that makes sense.
But what are you worried about anyway. This is a good chance for your side to really make your case. You can show that you have actually thought about the problem-not just swallowed a bunch of half diluted kool-aid.
First you have a small eye, then a bigger eye, then a bigger eye-I mean come on, exactly how intellectually lazy is your side anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 11:09 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2013 11:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 11:58 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 02-04-2013 12:54 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2013 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 02-04-2013 1:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 28 by Drosophilla, posted 02-04-2013 1:19 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 15 of 871 (689751)
02-04-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


How did a hand start?
That is a question which must give us paws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024