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

[dad]

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.

You can't defend your belief system that has an arrow shot through it's heart. Thus the blather.

 

[dad]

No, you certainly did not.

He did so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He did so.

Where?

We're talking about you, by the way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can't defend your belief system that has an arrow shot through it's heart. Thus the blather.

Nope, that's you.

You are a joke to me at this point.
You're not actually interested in serious discussion. That's obvious, with your little games and sad attempts at insults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a general FYI, mutations are common. The mutation rate for any particular base pair in one's genome is very very low. For example this article:


Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.

Estimates that the mutation rate per base pair is 2.5*10^-8. Seems extremely small. But when one realizes that there are billions of base pairs in the human genome that works out to 175 mutations per individual. Most of these mutations do nothing since most of our genome is still "junk DNA". But even those in active DNA for the most part appear to be benign. Having very little effect. Extreme mutations are the one's that are obvious. Those do tend to be harmful most of the time. But one does not judge something by the extremes.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Can you explain that please?
Mutation rates are low = The number of mutations occurring... to my understanding. It's not the speed of the mutation.

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

Define what? A mutation? You didn't ask me to define a mutation. You asked me "what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like".

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)?

Non micro mutation?
Mutations occur. We know this. The article I linked says.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm... called germ line mutations.

The article gave examples.
From these examples, an ear, an eye, a nose,... etc, may be altered, as is shown with the cat's ear curling.
Another example, is like building a resistance, like for example, the immune system building up a stronger defense system.
The article says nothing about mutations adding up to produce anything. Rather it says this...
There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

Why am I answering all your questions, and you are refusing to answer any of mine?
I'll try again. Is there anyone who can define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level?

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.

That still depends. Since, mutations are random. They don't choose where they happen. So no one can say they are occurring all the time where it really matters.
The article also said... Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.
If it doesn't occur in the reproductive cells, they don't matter at all - keeping in mind, my focus is on the major level of modification.

 

[ratiocinator]

Is there anyone who can define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level?

Any mutation at all that is beneficial in the context of the current environment of the population. There is no functional distinction between micro- and macroevolution. Macro is just a lot of micro built up over time.

 

[nPeace]

Any mutation at all that is beneficial in the context of the current environment of the population. There is no functional distinction between micro- and macroevolution. Macro is just a lot of micro built up over time.

Okay, so like what? That's the question, I think.
We already know what people say, but we are not discussing wishful thinking. So do you have something specific in mind, you can point to?

 

[dad]

Where?

We're talking about you, by the way.

This was what you originally responded to

"His word is truth.

In 17:17"

I consider He proved it. Here for example..

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

 

[dad]

Nope, that's you.

You are a joke to me at this point.
You're not actually interested in serious discussion. That's obvious, with your little games and sad attempts at insults.

You have offered no serious defense of your religion. No proof of the very basis you use in all models of earth past. None at all. You lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was what you originally responded to

"His word is truth.

In 17:17"

I consider He proved it. Here for example..

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

You misunderstand that verse. It was not a prophecy about Jesus. Part of the problem is that it did not say "virgin". That is a mistranslation. It says "young woman" when translated. There are terms for both "young woman" and "virgin" in Hebrew and the writer of that verse used the former. Second it was not even a prophecy about Jesus. It was a prophecy for the specific time that it was written in. Lastly Jesus was not called "Immanuel" His nickname was not "Manny". That verse fails and fails.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This was what you originally responded to

"His word is truth.

In 17:17"

I consider He proved it. Here for example..

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

The "Lord" has proved nothing to me. The "Lord" has never spoken to me. The "Lord" is not here on this forum.

You are here on this forum. I'm speaking to you. You need to prove what you said.
Boy, you really, really have a hard time with this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have offered no serious defense of your religion. No proof of the very basis you use in all models of earth past. None at all. You lose.

I don't have a religion.

Your deflections are pathetic.

Buh-bye now.

 

[Polymath257]

You have offered no serious defense of your religion. No proof of the very basis you use in all models of earth past. None at all. You lose.

There is no serious defense of Last Thursdayism. Once you have resorted to any version of that (and you have), nothing else needs to be taken seriously.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you explain that please?
Mutation rates are low = The number of mutations occurring... to my understanding. It's not the speed of the mutation.

Rates are determined by frequency of new mutations of a single gene within a population of organisms over time. Rates can be considered low because the frequency of new mutations is low when compared with mutations that are inherited. That doesn't mean the overall number of mutations is low (since mutations occur in every living thing).

Define what? A mutation? You didn't ask me to define a mutation. You asked me "what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like".

Yes, that is what I asked you. I never asked you to define a mutation, I asked you to define a "macro-mutation". Can you do that?

Non micro mutation?

Which would be...?

Mutations occur. We know this. The article I linked says.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm... called germ line mutations.

The article gave examples.
From these examples, an ear, an eye, a nose,... etc, may be altered, as is shown with the cat's ear curling.
Another example, is like building a resistance, like for example, the immune system building up a stronger defense system.
The article says nothing about mutations adding up to produce anything. Rather it says this...
There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

With respect, none of that really answers my question.

Can you give a hypothetical example of a mutation which would "cross the line" from a micro to a macro mutation? Would a human having a tail be a micro or macro mutation, for example?

Why am I answering all your questions, and you are refusing to answer any of mine?

Because you have yet to define your terms. Asking me to produce an example of a mutation that would be useful "at the macro level" is meaningless if you can't even define what would constitute a mutation "at the macro level".

I'll try again. Is there anyone who can define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level?

I've asked you to explain what you mean by "useful on the macro level", and you can't even define it, so your question is nonsensical. What does it mean to be "useful on the macro level" compared to simply "useful in general"?

A mutation that makes a bird's beak slightly thinner is useful if, in the environment it is in, the most readily available source of food to it are insects that live in small holes in trees. Would that class as something that is useful "on the macro level" or "on the micro level"?

That still depends. Since, mutations are random. They don't choose where they happen. So no one can say they are occurring all the time where it really matters.

Of course. That's why mutations alone don't result in evolution. For that, you need to add selective pressures that determine which mutations are beneficial and which are detrimental.

 

[tas8831]

The article I linked says.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm... called germ line mutations.
.

So precious - remember when you quoted an article describing what a "diagram" is as an attempted counter to the veracity of phylogenetics?

 

[nPeace]

Rates are determined by frequency of new mutations of a single gene within a population of organisms over time. Rates can be considered low because the frequency of new mutations is low when compared with mutations that are inherited. That doesn't mean the overall number of mutations is low (since mutations occur in every living thing).


Yes, that is what I asked you. I never asked you to define a mutation, I asked you to define a "macro-mutation". Can you do that?


Which would be...?


With respect, none of that really answers my question.

Can you give a hypothetical example of a mutation which would "cross the line" from a micro to a macro mutation? Would a human having a tail be a micro or macro mutation, for example?


Because you have yet to define your terms. Asking me to produce an example of a mutation that would be useful "at the macro level" is meaningless if you can't even define what would constitute a mutation "at the macro level".


I've asked you to explain what you mean by "useful on the macro level", and you can't even define it, so your question is nonsensical. What does it mean to be "useful on the macro level" compared to simply "useful in general"?

A mutation that makes a bird's beak slightly thinner is useful if, in the environment it is in, the most readily available source of food to it are insects that live in small holes in trees. Would that class as something that is useful "on the macro level" or "on the micro level"?


Of course. That's why mutations alone don't result in evolution. For that, you need to add selective pressures that determine which mutations are beneficial and which are detrimental.

Hello ImmortalFlame, I only have a minute today, and it seems that's all it will take to respond to this.
I really don't know what you are asking, but I will try to answer as best as I can... again.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells
Translating... Mutations must be in the reproductive cells if we are going to be talking about evolution on a major level.

A change may, or may not occur
Examples...
1) a small change - a curled ear, (which doesn't seem very beneficial to me anyway) etc.
2) a big change - resistance to a drug (which really is not due to the mutation, but due to the repair done, and the resistance built up by the immune system).

Selective pressure contributes to #2.

Aside from this, I have no other response, because I don't know what you are asking me to tell you. Plus, I don't have the time to get into more details right now.

Have a good day. See you perhaps on Friday.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hello ImmortalFlame, I only have a minute today, and it seems that's all it will take to respond to this.
I really don't know what you are asking, but I will try to answer as best as I can... again.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells
Translating... Mutations must be in the reproductive cells if we are going to be talking about evolution on a major level.

A change may, or may not occur
Examples...
1) a small change - a curled ear, (which doesn't seem very beneficial to me anyway) etc.
2) a big change - resistance to a drug (which really is not due to the mutation, but due to the repair done, and the resistance built up by the immune system).

I'm afraid that what you've just written makes no sense. I asked you what constitutes a "macro-mutation" and you've essentially said here that it is "big change" that ISN'T a mutation.

I'm asking, what constitutes a "macro-MUTATION", not just a "big change".

Selective pressure contributes to #2.

Aside from this, I have no other response, because I don't know what you are asking me to tell you. Plus, I don't have the time to get into more details right now.

But you're the one using the term "macro-mutation". As far as I am aware, there is no such distinction between mutations; that's the point. They are just mutations. They can cause big changes or, mostly, small changes, but they are the same.

Unless you can suitably define what would constitute a macro-mutation, how am I supposed to provide you with an example of one as you asked earlier?

Have a good day. See you perhaps on Friday.

Thank you, and I hope to see you then.

 

[metis]

I'm afraid that what you've just written makes no sense. I asked you what constitutes a "macro-mutation" and you've essentially said here that it is "big change" that ISN'T a mutation.

I'm asking, what constitutes a "macro-MUTATION", not just a "big change".


But you're the one using the term "macro-mutation". As far as I am aware, there is no such distinction between mutations; that's the point. They are just mutations. They can cause big changes or, mostly, small changes, but they are the same.

Unless you can suitably define what would constitute a macro-mutation, how am I supposed to provide you with an example of one as you asked earlier?


Thank you, and I hope to see you then.

Not only that, but the ToE deniers, when asked to produce objective evidence for their magical wall between macro and micro-evolution, for some reason can't do it no matter how many times they've been asked.

IMO, any religion or denomination that denies overwhelming and basic scientific evidence should be considered bogus because science and sincere religions/denominations realize that the Truth is the Truth, thus not relative.

I left my fundamentalist Protestant denomination over 50 years ago mainly for that reason. The irony is that they now do accept the ToE as long as it's viewed that God was behind it all.

 

[nPeace]

I'm afraid that what you've just written makes no sense. I asked you what constitutes a "macro-mutation" and you've essentially said here that it is "big change" that ISN'T a mutation.

I'm asking, what constitutes a "macro-MUTATION", not just a "big change".


But you're the one using the term "macro-mutation". As far as I am aware, there is no such distinction between mutations; that's the point. They are just mutations. They can cause big changes or, mostly, small changes, but they are the same.

Unless you can suitably define what would constitute a macro-mutation, how am I supposed to provide you with an example of one as you asked earlier?


Thank you, and I hope to see you then.

Didn't expect it, but I got about two hours now.

Honestly, I am having a hard time understanding you. Perhaps you are having a hard time understanding me.

Tell me please, does "macro-MUTATION" mean the same as "mutations that may be useful on a major level"?

If it does, then my answer is the same as my previous post, only with one slight adjustment, which isn't relevant to your terminology.

If it does not, then my answer is the same as my previous post, only with the hope that you understand I never used the term "macro-MUTATION"... whatever that's supposed to be.