What counts as a novel trait? We have played this game with ID/creationists before, and they will never admit that a novel trait has evolved no matter what the evidence is.
2 Likes
Just a thought. The object criteria could be something that we have never seen evolutionary processes produce. A new differentiated cell in a multicellular organism seems to meet this criteria.
That would mean nearly every mutation in all species is innovative because nearly every genome would be unique. For humans, every person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, and that applies to every generation before them. This ensures that, outside of identical twins, every human genome is unique. Every human genome is a genome that evolution has never produced.
What counts as new?
1 Like
How do you figure you are going to quantify ālotsā of new genetic material?
This is one of the reasons I stopped arguing with Atheists about Evolution. Itās like being in kindergarten and arguing whose imaginary friend can beat up somebody elseās imaginary friend!
The only reason is that there is a mechanism that Joshua is discussing that may bring a new idea to the party and that is genetic recombination. Can it solve the ānew innovationā problem?
You havenāt shown that there is a problem to solve.
1 Like
There is no tested model that shows how an eye an ear or a nervous system could originate from reproductive processes.
Round and round it goesā¦
2 Likes
Yes, there is a model. It is mutation and selection which can be tested for in experiments by measuring a phylogenetic signal.
1 Like
They canā¦ in fairytales.
1 Like
Mutation and selection is a process not a model. Now build a model of that process like Dawkins did in the blind watchmaker.
Avoiding the model by trying to call it something else does not make the model go away. Sorry, but now you are fully in denial and avoidance land.
1 Like
And yet you know that eyes and ears originate from genes every hour another baby is bornā¦ or do you think God magically prepares each and every baby?
Human knowledge of the details of how DNA controls the development of fetal tissue into a functioning toddler (referring to a functioning young creature, whether it is human or otherwise) is still quite far from being able to answer the specifics of your question.
And yet the alternative to the evolutionary model is - - i.e., Special Creation - - isnāt known by anyone, nor is it ever to be known by any human (at least on this side of the Heaven).
So what do you think you have accomplished? Do you doubt that DNA controls the development of eyes and ears? You couldnāt possibly, right? Because we know that every normal childbirth is produced by DNA controlling the development of Ears and Eyes!
So your big plan is to challenge whether anyone knows how the DNA apparatus changes from species to species?
And all the whileā¦ you yourself know God can use Evolution to do these things precisely.
So what I see you doing is taunting Atheistsā¦ daring them to finally say, only God can do it ā¦ itās too hard. And I suppose thatās fine except what you are doing is building up a reputation that if someone questions evolution in vigorous debate on these boards ā¦ then they must be a Creationist who opposes Evolution.
And yet you say you could accept that God uses Evolution? Well, if that is true, do you think you could stop tormenting the scruffy Atheists lying around getting into harmās way? Atheists are never going to tell you that you convinced them of God. And so all you are doing is creating the wrong impression to those who come here to learn about God using Evolution.
1 Like
Didnāt you read the article? The idea is not new. But more and more evidence is making it vividly clear that it is a meanigful part of how evolution works.
Notice how I worded that sentenceā¦ itās a meaningful part of how EVOLUTION worksā¦
For us, here, on these boards, it means we can see how complex Evolution can beā¦ and we can see that God can use all this complexity to achieve His ends.
I canāt imagine that you are any happier knowing about genetic recombinationā¦ because quietly, you still despise Evolution ā¦ and finding yet another way for Evolution to defy your expectations of God coming down to make you breakfast must tick you off considerably ā¦
Damn Bill. Barbara McClintock discovered and researched genetic recombination way back in 1930 and was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize for her work on mobile genetic elements.
In 1930, McClintock was the first person to describe the cross-shaped interaction of homologous chromosomes during meiosis. The following year, McClintock and Creighton proved the link between chromosomal crossover during meiosis and the recombination of genetic traits.They observed how the recombination of chromosomes seen under a microscope correlated with new traits. Until this point, it had only been hypothesized that genetic recombination could occur during meiosis, although it had not been shown genetically. McClintock published the first genetic map for maize in 1931, showing the order of three genes on maize chromosome 9. This information provided necessary data for the crossing-over study she published with Creighton; they also showed that crossing-over occurs in sister chromatids as well as homologous chromosomes. In 1938, she produced a cytogenetic analysis of the centromere, describing the organization and function of the centromere, as well as the fact that it can divide.
The only problem we have is with brutally dishonest Creationists who have no problems ignoring all the science theyāre shown and lying to say no one showed them.
2 Likes
Yes, I understand George. You are addicted to circular reasoning.
As opposed to your ignorance-based complete absence of reasoning?
1 Like
The appearance of ignorance is based on your group think circular reasoning. I am curious do you really believe the non sense assertions that you write on this blog or is it just a political agenda of yours?
LOL! Youāre really a hoot Bill! Millions of scientists in hundreds of different scientific disciplines for the last 150+ years are all engaged in āgroup think circular reasoningā on evolution but Bill knows DA TRUTH!
Itās hard to type while laughing so much. 
2 Likes
You have no idea whatās going on do you.
Why do you think Douglas Theobald assigned random mutation and natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms to micro evolution 20 years ago?
These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correctāespecially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.