Novel features and the evolutionist word-magic flimflam: If you assert it aggressively enough that will make it true.

There's a new thread at EvC about how novel features could have evolved, started by Tangle, who is one of the best posters EvC has ever had. Yes, he's an evolutionist but he's reasonable, he approaches the different subjects carefully, really makes an effort to grasp the best creationist arguments and treats them as rational rather than idiotic, is able to express the arguments articulately, and tries to find good evidence to answer them.

That's what he hopes will come of this new thread, since the last one on the subject degenerated into side issues and what he calls "exotica," or a sort of theoretical neverneverland -- which is usually where I stop reading a thread myself.

Some 17 posts into this new thread my assessment of him is holding up as he's dealing well with the other posts so far and keeping the creationist argument he wants to defeat clearly on the table.

I do want to comment here on JAR's contribution because JAR's arguments for the theory of evolution are mostly irrational and emotional, assuming most of it without evidence and thinking he's produced evidence when all he's done is assert the theory and dumped an observed fact or two into it. That's more or less what they all do but JAR is over the top most of the time. What I quote from Taq in my previous post on genetic information a couple days ago is an example of this kind of thinking, a real salad of assumption, assertion and the occasional fact. And for an example of JAR's inability to distinguish evidence from fantasy see his thread about the mummified man Oetzi from a few years ago.

Anyway, here we have another JAR production. First he asks:

Is this another hunt for the super genome? I thought we put that absurdity to bed long ago?

Tangle does a marvelously clear job of answering this later, the answer being No, a super genome isn't needed, the creationist position is that all the material for variation is in the genome we see now. Again if it weren't for my arthritic bones I'd jump and dance for joy at such clarity.

I used to think some sort of super genome was probably called for to explain the very great genetic variability that would have been needed to support the vigor and longevity of pre-Flood life, both human and animal, but I came to realize that simple heterozygosity for most traits provides an enormous range of variability. And, if junk DNA represents all the genes lost through the bottleneck of the Flood, and killed by mutations down through the generations since then, there would have been a huge range of genetic possibilities available before the Flood, and these two factors alone amount to a "super" genome without having to posit any difference in its structure.

Then JAR gives us this information:

We have come a long way in a fairly short period of time in sequencing various genomes. There are grape and cow and human and ancient human and neanderthal and bee and chimp genome sequencing projects and one factor has become pretty much a universal characteristic and that is that the genomes can be identified.

Send a lab an unknown sample and they send back a short note saying "That's a goat." or "That's a human." or "That's a elm tree".

We have samples from ancient folk and modern folk, from here and from there.

Marvelous! Exactly what a creationist would expect to see! Exactly what exists in reality! Observed facts that confirm creationism. Of course he doesn't notice that he's confirming creationist expectations and assumes instead that he's confirming his evolutionist bias -- or perhaps he thinks that if he announces it aggressively enough it will stop supporting creationism.

But then in a mind-boggling non sequitur he says this:

Novel features evolve over time in populations by changes in the genome that then get filtered by natural selection.

But all he's offered so far is nothing that could support this amazing leap into Evo Fantasyland but in fact supports the creationist view. The fact that solid scientific laboratories can so clearly recognize different Species from a look at their DNA naturally raises the question how one could evolve from another, how novel features could possibly arise. But of course he doesn't know, all he can do is recite the Evolutionist Creed that flatly declares that they DO arise, do "evolve over time in populations by changes in the genome". Uh huh. HOW, Jar? Silence. And he also knows that they "then get filtered by natural selection." Which isn't in dispute.

Then he adds another non-sequitur in another bit of creed:

It all comes down to imperfect copies.

I'm glad Tangle seems to know how to avoid getting entangled as it were in this typical frustrating evolutionist irrationality, and I hope he can continue doing so and get this thread on the track of something useful.

==========
Then in Post #18 JAR says:

But today we can identify not just individual species from a DNA sample, but often specific populations within a species.

That shows that genomes do change over time.

Again, he says this as if he's saying something that supports evolution, but in fact it supports creationism just as well. It's great to hear that DNA can tell them so much about a species and its varieties, really great. It reflects exactly what a creationist sees in the phenotype, and it's great to see that the DNA reflects it so exactly. The usual variation, the expected variation built into the genome. Microevolution.

Why can't these people at least LEARN what the creationist claims are and stop arguing with their straw men? And this is only one part of the futility of the Evo-Creo debate.

Well, again, I hope Tangle is up to untangling all this.

=====

5/24 Too bad, apparently Tangle isn't. The thread has degenerated into obscurantist technospeak, more credal announcements peppered with the usual accusations of creationists.

And of course nobody has criticized JAR for posting information as if it was evidence for evolution when it actually confirms creationist expectations just as well, proving again the futility of debate there.

Too bad, started well.

============
May 30 follow=up. Tangle again seems to have extricated the question from the oblivion that was threatening:

There have been a couple of further studies by the same people on these mice that add to the evidence. This one shows that natural selection is the mechanism that matches dark mice with dark rocks and light mice with light rocks. (Sadly, I can see only the abstract)

Previous work has demonstrated that two Mc1r alleles, D and d, differ by four amino acids, and are responsible for the color polymorphism: DD and Dd genotypes are melanic whereas dd genotypes are light colored. To determine the frequency of the two Mc1r allelic classes across the dark-colored lava and neighboring light-colored granite, we sequenced the Mc1r gene in 175 individuals from a 35-km transect in the Pinacate lava region. We also sequenced two neutral mtDNA genes, COIII and ND3, in the same individuals. We found a strong correlation between Mc1r allele frequency and habitat color and no correlation between mtDNA markers and habitat color. Using estimates of migration from mtDNA haplotypes between dark- and light-colored sampling sites and Mc1r allele frequencies at each site, we estimated selection coefficients against mismatched Mc1r alleles, assuming a simple model of migration-selection balance. Habitat-dependent selection appears strong but asymmetric: selection is stronger against light mice on dark rock than against melanic mice on light rock. Together these results suggest that natural selection acts to match pocket mouse coat color to substrate color, despite high levels of gene flow between light and melanic populations.

Jun;58(6):1329-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266981 The writers of these papers are very confident that they have identified the genes responsible for coloration in the mice that they have studied (but not other mice in other locations) and say that the difference is 4 amino acids.

How confident can we be that the allele changes are as a result of a mutation of an 'original' gene?

Good question I say. But I'd also say they don't have an answer because that question isn't one they are investigating. Mutation is usually assumed rather than made the subject of scientific inquiry.

No novel features, no new information, no evolution

There is another thread at EvC which is basically about the question of whether evolutionary processes can produce new genetic information, but this one is not on the level of the genetics but the phenotype or the traits governed by the genetics. The question is How do "novel" features evolve? I've pretty much lost interest in this question from either angle but thought I'd note this post by Taq which more or less summarizes his view of the whole dispute:

Zaius has once again shown us why creationist claims are useless. They claim that novel features must emerge through evolutionary mechanisms in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. So what would happen if we were able to travel back in time to watch every single generation from the first life to modern life, mapping each and every mutation? At every step the creationist would claim that no novel features evolved, ever.

This pretty much shows that the whole argument is on such a hypothetical level that all the calls for evidence are simply futile -- no evidence could possibly exist for such fanciful guesswork and either side can say anything at all in defense of his position.

So I might as well give my own view of what would happen in the case he describes. If we COULD go back to the beginning of life and map each and every mutation we wouldn't see evolution at all, we'd see exactly what we see today, separated Species or Kinds that vary among themselves and never produce novel features or new genetic information because they never produce anything but their own Kind or Species. From the beginning of life we would see the same Species we see today though perhaps very different varieties of them, plus some Species we don't see today because they've become extinct. On the genetic level at first we wouldn't see many mutations but as the generations succeed one another we would start to see an increase. Mutations alter the genetics of the creature, either producing a genetic disease or not affecting the phenotype in any observable way. Yes, we WOULD claim that no novel features evolved ever because they don't. They never did.

The truth of the matter is that evolution does not need to produce novel features, as defined by creationists, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. In their attempt to falsify evolution they have moved the goal posts off the field. "Novel feature" is a meaningless term as defined by creationists. "Novel feature" is a hole in the sand where they place their head.

Actually it's not. This particular question really ought to be focused on whether or not mutation is observed to produce new genes, not just new alleles but whole new genes, because that is at a minimum what "new information" implies -- again, at a minimum -- and what is needed if "novel" features could emerge. And novel features must emerge if a Species or Kind could evolve into another Species or Kind.

What does evolution need to produce? Heritable phenotypic change. Does it do that? Yep. Mutations produce changes in phenotype that are heritable, and the frequency of these new alleles is controlled by environmental pressures. Whether anyone names this change "novel" or not is completely irrelevant.

So here we are back at the evolutionist's reiteration of the evolutionist creed: what we observe happening is all that is needed to bring about evolution from one species to another, the great Faith or Fantasy that runs the whole show. They see normal variation within Species and make the mental leap that can never be subjected to evidentiary proof, that evolution is simply normal variation continued without interruption for millions or billions of years.

But let's unpack this statement. He says evolution needs to produce heritable phenotypic change and that it does that. How does he know that EVOLUTION does this? He sees heritable phenotypic change in nature and simply subsumes it under his evolutionist preconception. He assumes evolution and appropriates observable facts of nature to it. That's how it always works. That's the "scientific" procedure of evolutionism right there. Evolution is assumed and whatever is observed is mentally jammed into it. Evidence for any of this is nonexistent, it's all mental gymnastics. But heritable phenotypic change is just as well explained by the creationist assumption instead. Such change is simply the variations that occur within Species, or sometimes known as "microevolution." There is no evidence whatever that such change is open-ended as evolutionists assume, and as I will argue below, as I always do, there is evidence that there is a limit to such changes that confines them to the boundaries of a Species or Kind.

Mutations produce changes in phenotype that are heritable, and the frequency of these new alleles is controlled by environmental pressures. Whether anyone names this change "novel" or not is completely irrelevant

Mutations do produce heritable phenotypic changes, but it is one huge unproven assumption that the mutations create new alleles for viable healthy phenotypic traits; what HAS been proven many many times is that mutations have produced thousands of genetic diseases. It is pure unevidenced theory or assumption that mutations do anything that could further evolution.

The actual cause of NORMAL variation within Species is not mutations but the built-in genetic material that has been there from the beginning, such as genes for the traits that define the Species, plus a variety of alleles for the different genes. Alleles are just different forms of the genes that produce different qualities of a given trait in the phenotype. A gene may govern, say, eye color, and the various alleles for that gene will determine which color the eye will be. Mutations do not produce such viable alleles, they only interfere with these normal genetic variations and often produce distortions that cause diseases in the organism.

Mutations do not create new alleles, this has never been observed, it is something merely assumed by evolutionists, there is no evidence for it. The frequency of existing alleles may of course "be controlled by environmental pressures." Such as natural selection which could wipe out a part of a population, thus reducing the genetic variability and creating a new phenotype from the new gene frequencies thus brought about. Or a simple migration of a portion of a population to a new locale where it becomes isolated from the original population. Again new gene frequencies will be established and a new phenotype emerge. All this occurs from the simple shuffling of the alleles pre-existent in the gene pool. These alleles are pre-existing, built into the Species. There is no need for them to be formed by mutation and there is no evidence that any such thing occurs at all. Again, what there IS evidence for is that mutation is a destructive process; it alters the normal genetic formula, sometimes to the point of destroying its function altogether -- at which point the destroyed gene most likely becomes part of the great genetic graveyard known as Junk DNA. This is an UNhealthy process. Mutations not only do not do anything that could possibly further evolution, they contribute only to the deterioration of a Species.

As for what one CALLS new traits that emerge in new populations as a result of the "environmental pressures," they aren't called "novel" because they AREN'T novel, they are simply selected particular expressions out of the normal range of variation built into the Species. Except for the diseases of course, which ARE novel.

So as usual the best answer to all of this is that in reality what we observe happening IN ORDER to produce heritable phenotypic change is the DECREASE in genetic variability that ultimately leads to inability to vary further at all. Normal variation, or microevolution, has built-in genetic limits. This IS subject to evidentiary proof as I've also many times explained. If I were forty years younger and had a few million dollars I'd set up a scientific project for the purpose.

Normal variation comes about through changes in gene frequencies from population to population, which come about as populations become isolated from other populations, each having their own set of gene frequencies. This produces new phenotypes, especially in the smaller populations. If the new population is appreciably smaller than the original, which is often the case, the phenotypic change can be quite dramatic but the genetic variability of that new population will also be much less.

And so it goes until you can get what is called speciation or the development of a new phenotype that can't interbreed with the others of the same Kind, AND has drastically reduced genetic variability, which is the opposite of what it would need in order to vary further. Meaning: the very processes that bring about evolution lead to a genetic condition in which evolution is ultimately no longer possible at all. That's the end of the trail. Evolution defeats evolution.

Loss of Genetic Diversity same as Loss of Information: Both prevent macroevolution. Evolution Defeats Evolution

[NoNukes says]: A creationist might state that nature cannot create the "information" required to produce novel features and "macroevolution" . Dog breeding includes human intervention which can be viewed as being similar to an ID agent stepping in to add information allowing new features like wiener-dog legs.

I don't really grasp the context of the issue of "novel" characteristics so I'm not sure how to address that, but I can respond to the idea of "information" at least.

Apparently this is easily misunderstood, and I have to agree that the very term "information" is vague or even cryptic in a way. The idea is really pretty simple though, from a creationist point of view anyway. You have a given built-in genetic recipe from the Creation for each species, so the possibility of that species evolving into another would require the addition of whatever is lacking in the first that the second needs. That's the "information" that would have to be added to the genome for it to macroevolve. Perhaps I don't even need to invoke the original Created species for this to make sense. It should be apparent to all that each species does have its own genome, many of which are in the process of being sequenced, and they are being sequenced AS being specific to the particular species they belong to. The DNA for each species has its own characteristics peculiar to that species, genes that aren't found in some other species but only this one, a certain number of chromosomes particular to the species and so on and so forth, with of course occasional exceptions. The genes pertain to the particular trait, perhaps eye color, the alleles define the different qualities of that trait, in this case the color. Wherever there are many alleles for a trait you can get a great variety from the genome as given for that species, you don't need to add alleles. Macroevolution requires getting from these recognizable species to something completely outside the particular genetic recipe, whether you think of them as having evolved to their present identity or been created independently at the Creation. You still have to posit the addition of NEW information that is not already present in the current genome.

New genes at least. New alleles isn't enough. New alleles for extant genes could only give variation to the trait the gene instructs for.

So has anybody ever shown the formation of a new gene? Is there even a theory about how that might come about?

In any case, the whole idea of the need for more information really starts as an observation that the processes of evolution ELIMINATE INFORMATION rather than adding it, and that fact means that evolution is moving in a direction that makes evolution less rather than more possible.

But I think it's clearer to say that evolution reduces genetic diversity. It's really the same observation. Evolution eliminates alleles at the very least and at some extremes may eliminate ALL alleles for a given gene which effectively kills the gene and most probably makes it a corpse in the genetic graveyard known as Junk DNA.

This IS the natural direction of all evolutionary processes. In order to get a new phenotype, especially one that sticks and becomes characteristic of a new population or variation or breed, other alleles for the same traits that give a different character MUST GO. That's LOSS OF INFORMATION, or REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY.

THIS LOSS IS THE VERY MACHINE OF EVOLUTION ITSELF.

Now here comes RAZD answering NoNukes:

Curiously, the mutations that cause short legs are fairly common in many species, including humans - it's called Dwarfism.

So is RAZD saying these mutations are NEW information?

I must ask, how does he know these are mutations? He gives no evidence, he merely CALLS the allele that bring about this trait mutations. Evidence please. I'm willing to consider this a mutation myself just because dwarfism must be thought of as a disease process, which I KNOW mutations produce. But are all shorter legs caused by dwarfism or is it simply possible to get a combination of naturally occurring (built-in) genes/alleles that naturally produce shorter legs? Evidence please.

The difference is between a random mutation occurring and it being spread into the breeding population is selection.

Pure theory, which is all evolution ever has to offer. Is he talking about useful / beneficial mutations, and if so nobody has ever shown that they even occur except in very rare and problematic instances, they are merely ASSUMED to be the source of all change in the genome. But if we are talking about nondeleterious variations the most likely scenario is that a rare normal allele simply comes to expression, and then yes, it will spread in the population if it is selected in the reproductive lottery. If not, it won't. But to call it a mutation is simply to beg the usual questions.

Within the ecological challenges and opportunities imposed by artificial selection, there is a survival and reproductive benefit to having short legs for the dogs being bred that have them, and not having them would be detrimental. This is a rather demanding ecology to survive in, yes?

Could be, depends I suppose. But we still don't know if this is a mutation or simply a normal-occurring healthy allele.

Now the problem with the creationist\IDologist claim about information is that they don't define what the concept means

Well, it's difficult, but I believe I may have succeeded in defining it above. And I vote for substituting the concept of reduction or loss of genetic diversity as being easier to grasp.

or even more importantly, how it can be measured.

As I've proposed, do a DNA sampling of the first and last populations in a ring species, one you find in nature or one you create in the lab. You should find obvious reduced genetic diversity in the last population and probably a progression of reduction in intermediate populations as well. Lots of homozygosity in the last population, a lot more heterozygosity in the first. Go gather a bunch of salamanders from the California ring species, label them and sample their DNA especially the genes for the patterns on their skin.

He goes on to give an irrelevant self-fulfilling chart he claims falsifies the claim about loss of information. He's probably misreading a built-in allelic possibility as new information but it's all just an exercise in proving what he wants to prove.

No, do what I suggest above, see that there really is loss of genetic diversity (same as loss of information) when species evolve. That kills MACROevolution right there.