Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[tas8831]

Our position regarding how God created is not one of a peer, where we look at details of Almighty power. Our position is to believe or not. With science our position is more as peers.

The priesthood of science is peers. Peer review. Comparing themselves with themselves. That is how they became fools.

Ah, so you must have intimate detailed knowledge of the process by which Jehovah molded a pile of dust into a fully formed adult human male.

Let's have it!

 

[tas8831]

Thank you, Deeje. That was quite instructive. I was honestly fascinated to see how your mind works. I have so few acquaintances whose minds work like yours.

To be sure, I see no concrete evidence that you know why a scientist would examine a skull and then conclude that its owner had walked upright. But I suppose you will carry on anyway. I only hope you do not corrupt the thinking of too many innocent and naive people with your uninformed speculations. But the risk of such a thing happening is the price our societies must pay for freedom of speech.

Soon she will be complaining for the 77th time that published science has too much "jargon" in it....

 

[nPeace]

What do think any of this is actually saying? Because I don't think it's saying what you think it is.

You claimed that mutations are "rare", only result in "slight" modification and need to be "specifically located":

"...and yet, it is known that only very slight modification occur, due to the fact that mutations are random, rare, and need to be specifically located, in order to be passed on. They also know that mutations are non-adaptive in nature."

You have just now contradicted all three of those claims.

Or do you not not understand the difference between saying "mutations are rare" and "mutation rates are low"?

Why don't you tell me how it contradicts, because I don't see it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why don't you tell me how it contradicts, because I don't see it.

You claimed mutations were rare and only result in slight modification, yet your link specifically claims that single mutations CAN product significant changes in the phenotype, and that mutations combined with environmental effects can and do lead to significant changes in the phenotype. It says nothing about the rarity of mutation, and doesn't mention the requirement for mutations to occur only in "specific locations".

Your link contradicts what you have claimed.

 

[nPeace]

You claimed mutations were rare and only result in slight modification, yet your link specifically claims that single mutations CAN product significant changes in the phenotype, and that mutations combined with environmental effects can and do lead to significant changes in the phenotype. It says nothing about the rarity of mutation, and doesn't mention the requirement for mutations to occur only in "specific locations".

Your link contradicts what you have claimed.

I'm not getting you.
How does a single mutation resulting in significant changes in the phenotype, contradict mutations are rare and only result in slight modification?
Okay, I understand your perspective. I am using slight modification in a relative sense. Sorry.
Anything else?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not getting you.
How does a single mutation resulting in significant changes in the phenotype, contradict mutations are rare and only result in slight modification?
Okay, I understand your perspective. I am using slight modification in a relative sense. Sorry.
Anything else?

So how exactly are you defining "slight" modification?

Do you understand that mutations are demonstrably not rare?

 

[nPeace]

So how exactly are you defining "slight" modification?

Do you understand that mutations are demonstrably not rare?

They are rare. I am open to you showing otherwise. keep in mind I am again referring to them in a relative sense, because i am focused on those related only to what may be useful on a major level (macro).

 

[nPeace]

@ImmortalFlame I am also looking at their rareness, relative to the copying of genes, so if you have information to show they are not rare, please show me.

 

[dad]

Ah, so you must have intimate detailed knowledge of the process by which Jehovah molded a pile of dust into a fully formed adult human male.

Let's have it!

Maybe reread what you quoted for comprehension. We do not need to know how the Almighty does everything, nor do we need to pretend we know. Unlike the so called science religion which struts around pontificating and trying to sock it to us about where we came from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They are rare. I am open to you showing otherwise.

Mutations occur every time a living thing reproduces, in roughly one in every 100,000 nucleotides (SOURCE: What Are Mutations?).

An average human has, on average, 60 completely novel mutations in their genetic code (SOURCE: How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have?)

keep in mind I am again referring to them in a relative sense, because i am focused on those related only to what may be useful on a major level (macro).

Please be more specific, then. Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@ImmortalFlame I am also looking at their rareness, relative to the copying of genes, so if you have information to show they are not rare, please show me.

That's not what rarity means, or at least not the way I'm understanding it. To say mutations are rare is to say that mutations don't always occur, but that is not the case. Mutations occur every time a living thing reproduces, so they are far from rare.

To use an analogy, let's say that every day you receive a box, and inside each box was 100 coins. 99 of those coins are silver, and just one of those coins is gold. However, it is the exact same 99/1 ratio in every box you receive.

Keeping in mind that you are guaranteed at least one gold coin in every box you receive, and you receive a box every day, in this scenario, would you call gold coins "rare"?

 

[tas8831]

I'm not getting you.
How does a single mutation resulting in significant changes in the phenotype, contradict mutations are rare and only result in slight modification?

The more things change...

 

[nPeace]

Mutations occur every time a living thing reproduces, in roughly one in every 100,000 nucleotides (SOURCE: What Are Mutations?).

An average human has, on average, 60 completely novel mutations in their genetic code (SOURCE: How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have?)


Please be more specific, then. Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like.

Because mutation rates are low relative to population growth in most species, mutation alone doesn’t have much of an effect on evolution.

Do I understand this correctly?
The number of mutations occurring in individuals in a population are low, in relation to the growth of the population. So these have no significant effect on the population evolving.
I can't define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level. Is there anyone who can?

This is different to the micro level, where a cat may pass on a genetic modification, in say, eye color, etc. Mistake. Sorry.

That's not what rarity means, or at least not the way I'm understanding it. To say mutations are rare is to say that mutations don't always occur, but that is not the case. Mutations occur every time a living thing reproduces, so they are far from rare.

To use an analogy, let's say that every day you receive a box, and inside each box was 100 coins. 99 of those coins are silver, and just one of those coins is gold. However, it is the exact same 99/1 ratio in every box you receive.

Keeping in mind that you are guaranteed at least one gold coin in every box you receive, and you receive a box every day, in this scenario, would you call gold coins "rare"?

Perhaps I did use the wrong term, but again I was thinking in a relative sense. Sorry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because mutation rates are low relative to population growth in most species, mutation alone doesn’t have much of an effect on evolution.

Do I understand this correctly?
The number of mutations occurring in individuals in a population are low, in relation to the growth of the population. So these have no significant effect on the population evolving.

That's not quite what it says. What is says is that mutation RATES are low, not mutation NUMBERS. And it only says that mutation ALONE doesn't have much of an effect, because mutation needs a selective factor (such as natural selection) in order to result in significant changes at a population level.

I can't define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level. Is there anyone who can?

If you can't define it, then how can you claim they are rare?

This is different to the micro level, where a cat may pass on a genetic modification, in say, eye color, etc.

So what would you class as a non-micro mutation? And what prevents micro mutations from adding up to large changes (as they have been observed to do)?

Perhaps I did use the wrong term, but again I was thinking in a relative sense. Sorry.

That's okay. As long as there is mutual understanding that mutations are not rare in the sense that they do occur every time a living thing reproduces.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Truth is not faulty. The true basis science uses in models of the past must be looked at.

You haven't said any truth. You made a logical error that you still haven't acknowledged or corrected.

 

[SkepticThinker]

His word is truth.

In 17:17

Prove it.

 

[dad]

You haven't said any truth. You made a logical error that you still haven't acknowledged or corrected.

Says you.

 

[dad]

Prove it.

He did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Says you.

Says multiple people on the thread.

You've tried to shift the blame for your logical error at every turn. It's just amusing at this point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He did.

No, you certainly did not.