The Origin of Novelty

Moderators are too few to be everywhere. If you're experiencing problems in any thread then you can post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color].

Don't talk rubbish! You CANNOT prove anything outside of your own thoughts. It really is a paradigm of the scientific method that you NEVER talk about proof in ANY field.Satellites orbit the earth because we have applied engineering know-how to the best-fit science theories of how celestial mechanics work. But these theories are not 'proven' and are up for modification in the light of later evidence.When Newton described his 'laws' of planetary motion, people (but not necessarily smart-thinking scientists) thought they had orbital mechanics licked. Then Einstein came along with relativity and the whole game was revised. Newton mechanics are good - good enough to put rockets into orbit, but Einstein refines it further. Even now celestial mechanics are not 'proved'. In time Einstein equations will be further improved. And so it goes on.Please note that this very very rarely involves a complete trashing of a theory (because if the theory had been trash it would have been contradicted by the evidence that gave rise to it and evidence tends to remain), rather it involves tweaks and subtle adjustments, all the time refining and improving - but NEVER 'proving' as that condition is simply not obtainable outside of a pure 'thought experiment'.Really Faith - this is BASIC school science stuff. Almost the first thing I was taught in 3rd year (age 14) chemistry at my school is "Forget 'proof' in science - there is no such ideal in reality."It is NOT pedantic or prissy. The whole foundation of science investigative work hangs on that paradigm. To not see this is to not understand how science works. The reason I mentioned this example was that it was just that - an example of how science will adapt and incorporate new hypotheses in light of new evidence. Science is not dogmatic. What nonsense! By definition a forensic investigation deals with the past! It doesn't matter whether the evidence is one hour old or 100 million years old. Evidence is evidence.The important principle here is that the event under discussion cannot ever be witnessed by the investigators. Therefore only the evidence left behind (whether one hour old or 100 million years old) can tell the story. The skill is in being able to 'read' that evidence and understand the story....the skill which scientists do every day.You do realise that events in the far past have left many footprints of evidence in the present don't you?

To the participants:I don't have time at the moment to read the 50 or so messages posted since I last checked in, but I'm concerned because I'm beginning to detect a certain amount of chippiness. Please keep this in check and keep the focus on the topic.I should be able to catch up later today or early tomorrow.

No. He's saying that both he and Taq never said it was a gain in function. They both say it is a novel feature. The two are not the same.

Adminnemooseus responded to you in Message 111. He kept an eye on the thread after that, but Dr A never responded to you again, and you only posted a very few more messages anyway.Dr A has been suspended a couple times recently, so I'm not sure what you mean by moderation not working, unless your preference is permanent suspension, which isn't going to happen for minor offenses. It takes true and dedicated persistence at flaunting the Forum Guidelines to get permanently suspended.

No Huntard, he didn't call it a novel feature, he called it a "novel function" I know you are from the Netherlands, are you stoned?The two are not the same. A novel feature is not a novel function. But I would argue its not even a novel feature. Having bones that don't grow is not novel, anymore than having one less arm is a novel feature or function. If that were the case, then every aspect of the body would be called a novel feature, like for instance if your parents arms were 24 inches long, and your were 26, you might call that a novel feature. And you would be wrong again of course.I know you hate it when your side is losing so bad, but trying to lie to save them face just makes all of you look stupid.

No Huntard, he didn't call it a novel feature, he called it a "novel function" I know you are from the Netherlands, are you stoned?The two are not the same. A novel feature is not a novel function. But I would argue its not even a novel feature. Having bones that don't grow is not novel, anymore than having one less arm is a novel feature or function. If that were the case, then every aspect of the body would be called a novel feature, like for instance if your parents arms were 24 inches long, and your were 26, you might call that a novel feature. And you would be wrong of course.I know you hate it when your side is losing so bad, but trying to lie to save them face just makes all of you look stupid.

I don't think he did say that it was "a gain in function". Indeed, he described it as "deleterious".You do know what "deleterious" means, don't you?If he did say that it was "a gain in function", then I think he's wrong; if, on the other hand, you are being untruthful about what he said, then I think you're wrong.

I'm sorry, yes he did call it function instead of feature. A function can be a feature however. And no, I don't do drugs (yes Oni, I'm a pussy ). But a novel function can be a novel feature. It is if the function/feature wasn't present before, which it wasn't. Why? Although limb length probably falls within a normal set of variation. But what about bone growth. Why is the absence of bone growth not a novel function/feature if it wasn't present before? I'm not trying to save their face. I was trying to give an outside perspective, in that I apparently read a different meaning in their words than you did. I thought that pointing this out would be helpful, and so, I responded. If you'd rather have me not trying to help anymore, I'll gladly stop posting at your request.

Dr A,Do you need me to describe to you , in very slow and simple terms, how to go back on this forum and reread posts? I would be happy to, because I know that you that you are so busy trying to come up with your latest "novel" put down, that you never have really had the time to understand how to use some of the more advanced features on this site, like going to back pages and stuff like that. You do understand what a page is right? And reading, you kind of know that, correct?Or I could just copy and paste his post RIGHT HERE for you-but this way is so much more fun for both of us, don't you agree?

Apology accepted.Actually Oni is the pussy, he is afraid to look at things sober.

Novel =
1. new and not resembling something formerly known or used2. original or striking especially in conception or styleSo, would dwarfism be something new when both parents did not suffer from dwarfism, seems like yes is the correct answer... SourceFunction =
1. professional or official position2. the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists3. any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action4. an official or formal ceremony or social gathering5.A. a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set5.B. a variable (as a quality, trait, or measurement) that depends on and varies with another6. characteristic behavior of a chemical compound due to a particular reactive unit7. a computer subroutine; specifically : one that performs a calculation with variables provided by a program and supplies the program with a single resultIn the proper environment, could dwarfism turn out to be specially fitted for something...seems like another yes to me. Sourceand the big one:
Deleterious = harmful often in a subtle or unexpected wayIn most cases with natural selection, would dwarfism be harmful...why, yes it seems it would. SourceSo, we have a child born with dwarfism to normal height parents (a novel/new trait), which could serve a function in the proper environment. Unfortunately, the current environment is not one where dwarfism is advantageous, rather it is deleterious/harmful. However, this does not take away from the fact that it is a mutation causing a novel function...simply based upon what those words mean, as per the English language.Also, your other examples would also be novel features, although in general they would also be deleterious/harmful. Imagine a scenario where our child is born with dwarfism, but the environment favors this trait. Say, a place where all caves have super small entrances. Well, if a predator comes along and is eating human beings, who is most likely to escape predation....That is right! The child with dwarfism that can achieve safety in caves. Now, this novel feature actually serves a beneficial function. (This is a highly improbable situation, and in most 99.9% of cases dwarfism will be deleterious, but it still shows this as a novel feature and a novel function).

You have to subscribe to get the full article. New ScientistOriginal pickup was hereAnd here is a bit on Lawton himself. Follow the links at the bottom.Maybe "creationist" was too strong since it appears Lawton doesn't seem to care about anything other than self- aggrandizing.

I am very fascinated by all the evolutionists who think that dwarfism is a novel function. I think its quite enlightening.So how about my other examples, a cleft palate, being born with a stump for an arm, or with only half a heart-these would be novel functions as well? How about being born with Cystic Fibrosis?

You keep missing one word in all of this....I will attempt to spell it out slowly.De-le-ter-i-ous....... did you get it this time?A novel function doesn't have to help the organism, but could be harmful. So, yes, those would be novel functions (the first time they appear in a genetic line). That does not mean that they have to help the organism. Get that through your head and we will be a little bit closer to an understanding. You keep seeming to think that a novel function must be beneficial and that is incorrect thinking on your part, not any fault of those who can understand the difference between deleterious and beneficial.