Replies

“the very existence of the new structure demands different information, whether it’s new or had always been there but never expressed.”

It could have been something that was latent but triggered by diet. It also could have been something that existed in a few of the transplanted lizards, but it proved so advantageous that their decendants became dominant in the new location. Both are jsut speculation, but either seems more likely that a random mutation causing the development of a new structure similar to an existing structure in other lizards in only 36 years.

It could have been something that was latent but triggered by diet. It also could have been something that existed in a few of the transplanted lizards, but it proved so advantageous that their decendants became dominant in the new location. Both are jsut speculation, but either seems more likely that a random mutation causing the development of a new structure similar to an existing structure in other lizards in only 36 years.

What you just described is called evolution. "It also could have been something that existed in a few of the transplanted lizards, but it proved so advantageous that their decendants became dominant in the new location." Right. Or an unexpressed gene. Regardless, how do you propose this genetic shift occured? Originally? There is pretty much only one answer: genetic mutation.

Each generation has millions of mutations at the genetic level. I have blue eyes and black hair. My wife likes to call me a mutant. And she's right. Teensy tiny allele frequency shifts happen all the time and usually go unnoticed.

But sometimes, they ARE "noticed" by natural selection. (I know I'm anthropomorphicizing here). That population with the advantageous (or disadvantageous) mutation gets isolated like these lizards and boom, evolution. Let them stew for a few million years, and creationits would say they are two distinct species.

Creationists now are being forced to admit that there is "variation within a kind." (aka evolution, but whatever.) I often ask, Ok, fine, what is the mechanism at the genetic level that tells those variations within "kinds" to stop variationating? Becaust it MUST be there, right? Otherwise, those variations within kinds might just keep on going and oh gosh no! YOu'll have two species in the end! And we can't have that now can we?

“the very existence of the new structure demands different information, whether it’s new or had always been there but never expressed.”

I just want to point out that I preceded this with "it seems to me clear that at some level." I'm not making that statement about information as a bald claim--I don't have the expertise to do that.

It could have been something that was latent but triggered by diet. It also could have been something that existed in a few of the transplanted lizards, but it proved so advantageous that their decendants became dominant in the new location. Both are jsut speculation, but either seems more likely that a random mutation causing the development of a new structure similar to an existing structure in other lizards in only 36 years.

The only thing I'd add to that is a "to me" after "either seems" in the last sentence. That scenario does raise the question of why these lizards had that latent information for all those years when they didn't need it, and where it came from in the first place.

I should also mention that it's not necessarily a new, never-before-seen mutation. It's quite possible that the mutation that led to the new structure occurred in the original population frequently, but because it never conferred a survival advantage, it didn't get "fixed."