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

[nPeace]

Some people are so duped into believing in anything this world dishes out to them, that they don't even realize how duped they are. So much so that they want others to be duped alongside them, and when that does not happen, what do they turn to attacking....?

What's ironic, is that such persons are happy to point at another's religion - when in fact religion has nothing to do with it, but they get highly protective of their religious beliefs, when someone, so much as says, their faiths are not the same, and accuse the person of questioning their faith. Wow.

Yet, on the topic of evolution - not religion, they are quick to bring up religions to hammer at them, and most likely they would sit back and say how they are not being judgmental of another's religion. Wow. The irony is killing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I decided it was best to extract the information, and copy paste, with a bit of editing.

Greek
Khri·sti·a·nosʹ / Khri·sti·a·nonʹ / khris-tee-an-os' (Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ)
Latin - Chri·sti·aʹnum / Chri·sti·aʹnus

Strong's Greek: 5546. Χριστιανός (Christianos) -- a Christian
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5546: Χριστιανός
Χριστιανός (cf. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 16 note), Χριστιανου, ὁ (Χριστός), a Christian, a follower of Christ: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

thanks for a great post.

I have an important question, though. Several times you mentioned that a Christian follows the teachings of Christ. May I ask which ones? For example, in one place Jesus tells a rich man that to gain eternal life he needs to obey the commandments (and since he didn't specify how many, we can assume all 613). In another place, he teaches that how we treat the poor, hungry, sick, and oppressed determines whether we enter eternal life or damnation. In yet another place, he teaches that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Are you supposed to pick one? Do all of them? What? Are you to take literally that to lust is identical to commit adultery? That being angry is identical to murder? That we are not to defend ourselves against assault? I'm just wondering which teachings of Jesus you are referring to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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"?

That's what I'm asking you - you are the one who has asked for examples of macro-mutation, and I'm asking you what a macro-mutation is.

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.

But how do you quantify what is useful "on a major level"? I provided you with an example of a bird's beak being slightly thinner so that it can grab insects from inside holes in trees. Is that a micro mutation or a maco mutation?

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.

My apologies - I engaged in a change in terminology without making it explicit. Several posts ago, you wrote this:

(Re: mutations) "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)."

I then asked:

"Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like."

To which you answered:

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

I have since shortened "mutation which would be useful on the macro level" to "macro-mutation" to streamline the discussion.

So, to be clear:

Macro-mutation = mutation which, as you said, would be useful "on the macro level".

You have yet to give an example of what such a mutation would even hypothetically look like. How would you determine whether or not a mutation is or is not useful on the "macro level"?

 

[nPeace]

thanks for a great post.

I have an important question, though. Several times you mentioned that a Christian follows the teachings of Christ. May I ask which ones? For example, in one place Jesus tells a rich man that to gain eternal life he needs to obey the commandments (and since he didn't specify how many, we can assume all 613). In another place, he teaches that how we treat the poor, hungry, sick, and oppressed determines whether we enter eternal life or damnation. In yet another place, he teaches that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Are you supposed to pick one? Do all of them? What? Are you to take literally that to lust is identical to commit adultery? That being angry is identical to murder? That we are not to defend ourselves against assault? I'm just wondering which teachings of Jesus you are referring to.

I think that can be answered quite simply, but so as to be clear...
We can ask ourselves what Jesus meant when he said this... "Therefore, pay attention to how you listen, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.” (Luke 8:18)

Think back to the rich man. Was he following Jesus? No. Think about Jesus' words in connection to that man.
"Whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him."

Now think of Jesus' words in relation to those who followed him - not for food (physical, that is), but those who really followed, and stuck with him.
I'm sure you know the scriptures, so I don't have to relate the account in John 6.
However, the words in Luke 8 were also recorded by Matthew...
(Matthew 13:12-15)
12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

Jesus continues...
13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’
16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things you are observing but did not see them, and to hear the things you are hearing but did not hear them.
18 “Now listen to the illustration of the man who sowed. 19 Where anyone hears the word of the Kingdom but does not get the sense of it, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart; this is the one sown alongside the road.
You know the rest.

Jesus explains that there are those who will hear, they will see, but they will not get the sense of it - they will not understand. Why not?
Were they really following Jesus?

Notice the contrast with his true followers...
(Matthew 13:51, 52)
51 “Did you get the sense of all these things?” They said to him: “Yes.” 52 Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”

I think that last verse says a lot, in relation to your questions.
Sorry to go the roundabout way, but I wanted the picture to be clear.
Christ's illustrations in Matthew 13 especially about the seeds, and the minas (Luke 19:11-27), are key.

A person who hears Christ, but does not follow him - stick around long enough, that is. Can they be considered a follower of Christ? I think we agree, no.
A person who hears Christ, but does not do what he says, is not a follower of Christ, are they.
The only way to really get the sense of what Jesus says, is to "stick to the plot", so to speak... to the end.

So taking his early followers as an example, they did not understand everything he said, or how it applied, and even on some occasions, to whom it applied (Luke 12:41, 42). Yet, they stuck it all the way, right up to the time when he told them... "Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me..." (Acts 1:4), and beyond.

So the short answer is this.... If one follows the sayings of Christ, from start to finish, they would get the sense of it. They would understand that the Law was until the Christ, and thus the old covenant would be replaced. The Law of Moses would be replaced by the Law of Christ.
So gradually, the law which was rightfully kept, was fading off the scene.... to be replaced by the Law of Christ - the mediator of the new covenant. (Galatians 3:19-29)
So those who followed Christ understood what the Law of the Christ, and obeying his commands meant.

Sorry again for stretching it, but I think it is important to understand, it involves more than professing to follow Christ, or hearing his words.
I'm sure the answer was clear enough, but I hope you understand.

 

[nPeace]

That's what I'm asking you - you are the one who has asked for examples of macro-mutation, and I'm asking you what a macro-mutation is.


But how do you quantify what is useful "on a major level"? I provided you with an example of a bird's beak being slightly thinner so that it can grab insects from inside holes in trees. Is that a micro mutation or a maco mutation?


My apologies - I engaged in a change in terminology without making it explicit. Several posts ago, you wrote this:

(Re: mutations) "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)."

I then asked:

"Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like."

To which you answered:

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

I have since shortened "mutation which would be useful on the macro level" to "macro-mutation" to streamline the discussion.

So, to be clear:

Macro-mutation = mutation which, as you said, would be useful "on the macro level".

You have yet to give an example of what such a mutation would even hypothetically look like. How would you determine whether or not a mutation is or is not useful on the "macro level"?

When I said "I can't define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level." I was responding to your question... "Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like." which I think was confusing as to what you were really asking me to do. That's why I asked you the question.

So now that that is clear, my answer is as I said. The examples I gave, from the article, are what has been presented. What I know about mutations, is that they are a result of copying errors.
(I just want to correct one thing I said about repairing, and the immune system. That was not correct.) So it seems to me, the marginal benefits of a mutation, must be so due to other factors. I am no scientist, so I am asking you...

Do you have any data to show what you proposed as an example, and do you have any other examples that you can point to, along with the data?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When I said "I can't define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level." I was responding to your question... "Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like." which I think was confusing as to what you were really asking me to do. That's why I asked you the question.

But I only asked the question because you earlier wrote (emphasis mine):

(Re: mutations) "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)."

I asked you what you meant by the part in bold - exactly what type of mutation would be classed as a mutation on the macro/major level.

So now that that is clear, my answer is as I said. The examples I gave, from the article, are what has been presented.

So you do acknowledge that mutations that are useful on the macro scale DO occur?

What I know about mutations, is that they are a result of copying errors.
(I just want to correct one thing I said about repairing, and the immune system. That was not correct.) So it seems to me, the marginal benefits of a mutation, must be so due to other factors. I am no scientist, so I am asking you...

Do you have any data to show what you proposed as an example, and do you have any other examples that you can point to, along with the data?

Darwin's finches - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you have any data to show what you proposed as an example, and do you have any other examples that you can point to, along with the data?

There's the classic peppered moth - we now know what the mutation was and when it happened.

Textbook moth's dark secret revealed
The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry. You are unfortunately mistaken. Perhaps because, again, you assume to know.

I have a prophecy.
You'll soon end up in a no true scottsman fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are rare. I am open to you showing otherwise

Every heared of terms "mutation rate"?
It concerns the average amount of mutations that will occur in every newborn of a certain species.
For homo sapiens, the mutation rate is about ~50 to ~60. Let's go with 50, for ease of round numbers.

This means that every newborn human, comes with 50-ish mutations.
There are 7 billion humans in the world today.

That's, on average, 7 billion times 50. So, TODAY, there are some 350 billion mutations that exist in all living humans.


"rare"? Not really.

. keep in mind I am again referring to them in a relative sense

What does that mean?

because i am focused on those related only to what may be useful on a major level (macro).

What does that mean?

 

[nPeace]

But I only asked the question because you earlier wrote (emphasis mine):

(Re: mutations) "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)."

I asked you what you meant by the part in bold - exactly what type of mutation would be classed as a mutation on the macro/major level.


So you do acknowledge that mutations that are useful on the macro scale DO occur?


Darwin's finches - Wikipedia

I said mutations are the result of copying errors. So it seems to me, the marginal benefits of a mutation, must be so due to other factors.
Do you understand that?

So tell me, did a mutation cause the beak to narrow, then a mutation cause it to widen, then a mutation cause it to etc.? I don't think so.

Same with the peppered moths. @ratiocinator did a mutation cause the moth to turn black, then a mutation caused it to return to it's original color.... ?
Mutations are one directional. They don't revert.
If these are the claims being made, I think those making these claims are lying.

Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation.
I think they don't know, but they make up stuff to explain their belief.

For the moths, the dark colouration developed because they were trying to hide, but the butterflies use bright colours to advertise their toxicity to predators.
This is an obvious lie.

Mutations are random
...mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

This, I have found to be common with the theory of evolution.
They are simply creating a make belief story and they find crafty ways to make the story appear real, but imo, it doesn't take a genius to see that this is obviously nothing more than a modern day myth.

Spoiler: Birds evolved from Dinosaurs

The origin of birds
The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China, South America, and other countries, as well as by looking at old museum specimens from new perspectives and with new methods. The hunt for the ancestors of living birds began with a specimen of Archaeopteryx, the first known bird, discovered in the early 1860s.

The evolution of birds began in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropod dinosaurs named Paraves.

Origin of birds
The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era.
A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.

Spoiler: Dinosaurs evolved from Dinosaurs, and Birds

Dinosaurs evolved within a single lineage of archosaurs 243-233 Ma (million years ago) from the Anisian to the Carnian ages, the latter part of the middle Triassic.

Archosaurs are a group of diapsid amniotes whose living representatives consist of birds and crocodilians. This group also includes all extinct dinosaurs, extinct crocodilian relatives, and pterosaurs.

Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs, are a group of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton.

Dinosaurs and the origin of birds
Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised subgroup of theropod dinosaurs, and more specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others. As scientists have discovered more theropods closely related to birds, the previously clear distinction between non-birds and birds has become blurred. Recent discoveries in the Liaoning Province of northeast China, which demonstrate many small theropod feathered dinosaurs, contribute to this ambiguity.

Crocodilia (or Crocodylia) is an order of mostly large, predatory, semiaquatic reptiles, known as crocodilians. They first appeared 95 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period (Cenomanian stage) and are the closest living relatives of birds, as the two groups are the only known survivors of the Archosauria

Reptiles arose about 310–320 million years ago during the Carboniferous period.
Reptiles first arose from amphibians in the swamps of the late Carboniferous.

Reptiles are tetrapod animals in the class Reptilia, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, amphisbaenians, lizards, tuatara, and their extinct relatives.

Amphibians are ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates of the class Amphibia. Modern amphibians are all Lissamphibia.

I know an explanation is given, but it's still a story... Yes, a holey story.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I said mutations are the result of copying errors. So it seems to me, the marginal benefits of a mutation, must be so due to other factors.
Do you understand that?

Not really. For starters, not all mutations are copying errors, and just because a mutation is a copying error doesn't make the potential benefits of it marginal.

What makes you think copying errors can only produce marginal changes?

So tell me, did a mutation cause the beak to narrow, then a mutation cause it to widen, then a mutation cause it to etc.? I don't think so.

Then what mechanism do you propose causes this variation?

Same with the peppered moths. @ratiocinator did a mutation cause the moth to turn black, then a mutation caused it to return to it's original color.... ?
Mutations are one directional. They don't revert.
If these are the claims being made, I think those making these claims are lying.

That's not true. Mutations simply produce changes - they don't have to "revert", a new arrangement can simply lead back to a similar formation (or, at least, the appearance of it).

Take the beaks, for example. Let's say we have a population of birds living in an area where a good source of food would be small insects that live in holes in trees. Mutations occur which result in some very slight variation in the beak shape of some of these birds, resulting in those with longer, more pointed beaks thriving - since they have an easier time getting into the insect's nests. Eventually, over multiple generations, practically all the birds in this population have developed long, pointy beaks.

Now let's say that, as this population gets bigger, it spreads out throughout the forest. A second population has ended up in an entirely different part of the forest from the first, where those insects that live in tiny holes are no longer present. Now, the best source of food in this area are beetles that live in patches of tough, dry bark. Variation among the beaks still occurs, but now the long, pointy beaks are less successful. Instead, birds born with smaller, blunt beaks start to thrive, and their mutation spreads through subsequent generations.

The mutation didn't "revert". The mutation that renders the beak skinny and the mutation that renders the beak blunt are still mutations; variations on the same genetic code being passed along.

For the moths, the dark colouration developed because they were trying to hide, but the butterflies use bright colours to advertise their toxicity to predators.
This is an obvious lie.

Please demonstrate this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really. For starters, not all mutations are copying errors, and just because a mutation is a copying error doesn't make the potential benefits of it marginal.

What makes you think copying errors can only produce marginal changes?


Then what mechanism do you propose causes this variation?


That's not true. Mutations simply produce changes - they don't have to "revert", a new arrangement can simply lead back to a similar formation (or, at least, the appearance of it).

Take the beaks, for example. Let's say we have a population of birds living in an area where a good source of food would be small insects that live in holes in trees. Mutations occur which result in some very slight variation in the beak shape of some of these birds, resulting in those with longer, more pointed beaks thriving - since they have an easier time getting into the insect's nests. Eventually, over multiple generations, practically all the birds in this population have developed long, pointy beaks.

Now let's say that, as this population gets bigger, it spreads out throughout the forest. A second population has ended up in an entirely different part of the forest from the first, where those insects that live in tiny holes are no longer present. Now, the best source of food in this area are beetles that live in patches of tough, dry bark. Variation among the beaks still occurs, but now the long, pointy beaks are less successful. Instead, birds born with smaller, blunt beaks start to thrive, and their mutation spreads through subsequent generations.

The mutation didn't "revert". The mutation that renders the beak skinny and the mutation that renders the beak blunt are still mutations; variations on the same genetic code being passed along.


Please demonstrate this.

@nPeace is quick with the false accusations, but I can't remember his ever justifying them.

 

[ratiocinator]

Same with the peppered moths. @ratiocinator did a mutation cause the moth to turn black, then a mutation caused it to return to it's original color.... ?
Mutations are one directional. They don't revert.
If these are the claims being made, I think those making these claims are lying.

I don't think anybody suggested that all of the lighter coloured moths died out. However, what makes you think mutations are one way? It depends on exactly what the mutation was as to how likely an actual reversal would be but there is no direction involved. For example, for simple copying errors, if GCAACT can mutate to GAAACT, then it can obviously mutate back.

Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation.
I think they don't know, but they make up stuff to explain their belief.

They know by comparing the genomes between the different coloured moths.

For the moths, the dark colouration developed because they were trying to hide, but the butterflies use bright colours to advertise their toxicity to predators.
This is an obvious lie.

Why?

What's is quite obvious that you are coming to this from a position of almost complete ignorance of the subject - yet you accuse pretty much all of the world's experts in the field of lying.

Why would they do such a thing? What's the motivation? Who is organising this vast conspiracy? The people with the obvious vested interest here are those who object to evolution, almost all of which do so based primarily on religious belief - and they do lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would they do such a thing? What's the motivation? Who is organising this vast conspiracy?

Isn't it obvious??
They work for Satan and are out to eradicate the bible and the good True Christians (tm).

DUH!!

That's what you get for missing the last ASSCC meeting.
You'll get your Atheist Satanic Science Conspiracy Center membership revoked if you continue to miss these meetings...

 

[Audie]

Isn't it obvious??
They work for Satan and are out to eradicate the bible and the good True Christians (tm).

DUH!!

That's what you get for missing the last ASSCC meeting.
You'll get your Atheist Satanic Science Conspiracy Center membership revoked if you continue to miss these meetings...

I favour the WWCOSSTSTTOG

 

[nPeace]

Not really. For starters, not all mutations are copying errors, and just because a mutation is a copying error doesn't make the potential benefits of it marginal.

What makes you think copying errors can only produce marginal changes?

Did I say that?

Then what mechanism do you propose causes this variation?

I think it's the same as their offspring Caterpillars of the peppered moth perceive color through their skin: Twig-mimicking caterpillars change their color depending on the background and move to color-matching backgrounds

That's not true. Mutations simply produce changes - they don't have to "revert", a new arrangement can simply lead back to a similar formation (or, at least, the appearance of it).

What is not true?
What exactly do you mean by "a new arrangement? Can you explain please.

Mutation
It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damage and mutation are fundamentally different. Damage results in physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single- and double-strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damage can be recognized by enzymes, and thus can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented, and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked or the cell may die.

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce.

One direction.

Take the beaks, for example. Let's say we have a population of birds living in an area where a good source of food would be small insects that live in holes in trees. Mutations occur which result in some very slight variation in the beak shape of some of these birds, resulting in those with longer, more pointed beaks thriving - since they have an easier time getting into the insect's nests. Eventually, over multiple generations, practically all the birds in this population have developed long, pointy beaks.

Why does the mutation occur? You seem to think mutations choose what to do.
They don't. Mutations are random, and they are not driven by conditions - i.e. because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful.

If you introduce poison, you can indeed drive mutations, but not where you want them to go. Drive them crazy, yes. You can only hope cells survive, to win over the invasion, but it won't be the mutation that drove the adaptation.

Now let's say that, as this population gets bigger, it spreads out throughout the forest. A second population has ended up in an entirely different part of the forest from the first, where those insects that live in tiny holes are no longer present. Now, the best source of food in this area are beetles that live in patches of tough, dry bark. Variation among the beaks still occurs, but now the long, pointy beaks are less successful. Instead, birds born with smaller, blunt beaks start to thrive, and their mutation spreads through subsequent generations.

This is perhaps due to your presupposing that mutations are responsible for all the changes you see.
I often wonder why people use various lengths of humming birds in the same way, rather than attribute it to different genes of the various "species" mixing.

You notice we have noses of different sizes and shapes, and other features. You don't think that's due to mutations, do you?

You kind of lost me with this paragraph though It seems a bit incoherent.
I can't figure out how the second population is connected to the first spreading out. Are you saying some remained in the original location, and the second population moved there and mixed?

The mutation didn't "revert". The mutation that renders the beak skinny and the mutation that renders the beak blunt are still mutations; variations on the same genetic code being passed along.


Please demonstrate this.

Demonstrate what please? That the man lied, when he said, "For the moths, the dark colouration developed because they were trying to hide, but the butterflies use bright colours to advertise their toxicity to predators."

I'm sure I did.
Mutations are random
...mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

 

[nPeace]

I don't think anybody suggested that all of the lighter coloured moths died out. However, what makes you think mutations are one way? It depends on exactly what the mutation was as to how likely an actual reversal would be but there is no direction involved. For example, for simple copying errors, if GCAACT can mutate to GAAACT, then it can obviously mutate back.

Where is your evidence for that?

DNA repair - Wikipedia
In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce.

Then you have to assume that you will definitely get "lucky". ..but then, what's luck to evolution theory.
Still there is no reverting. It's one way all the time.

They know by comparing the genomes between the different coloured moths.

They are guessing. Always guessing, and making up stuff to support their belief.
Now that they found a way to officially squeeze mutations into their method, along with naturally selection, they don't mind admitting how they deliberately tried to fool the public, and mislead the youth.
Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths
Still doing so.

Why?

What's is quite obvious that you are coming to this from a position of almost complete ignorance of the subject - yet you accuse pretty much all of the world's experts in the field of lying.

Why would they do such a thing? What's the motivation? Who is organising this vast conspiracy? The people with the obvious vested interest here are those who object to evolution, almost all of which do so based primarily on religious belief - and they do lie.

One just has to pay attention, and be aware of what is being presented. The problem there is that the majority of the public, do not have a clue about any of this. They just listen to the "experts". So long as the "experts" say it, it must be true.
Just like those that attend Sunday services. Clueless, they leave it up to the pastor to tell 'em what it is.
Even on theses forums, there are persons who let consensus be their truth.

I think those who believe the evolution theory are deluded... totally.
Right now you have a system that tells you, Homology don't lie. The fossil record speaks the truth. Yet, they are building this enormous tree, with conflicting data between DNA sequencing, the fossil record, and comparing structure.

Then we have the constant adjustments made, to squeeze taxa into slots, in order to make a 'uniform' story... where the chapters don't fit.

Turtle
...the earliest-known fossil turtle ancestors, like Proganochelys, were terrestrial and had a complete shell, offering no clue to the evolution of this remarkable anatomical feature. By the late Jurassic, turtles had radiated widely, and their fossil history becomes easier to read.

Their exact ancestry has been disputed. It was believed they are the only surviving branch of the ancient evolutionary grade Anapsida, which includes groups such as procolophonids, millerettids, protorothyrids, and pareiasaurs.


The earliest turtles known date to the Late Permian Epoch (the Permian Period lasted from 298.9 million to about 251.9 million years ago). Whereas living turtles are toothless, many ancestral forms possessed teeth. Many of the oldest and most primitive forms not only lacked a shell but also lacked a plastron and a carapace. However, early turtles did possess precursors to these structures.


Turtle evolution mystery deepens

Spoiler

Scientists know that the precursors of modern turtles and tortoises that had a generally recognisable body plan first appeared in the late Triassic period, roughly 200 million years ago. However, exactly what group of reptiles they descended from remains one of evolution’s most enduring puzzles.

For more than a century the oldest known turtle was Proganochelys. It had a fully formed shell, but its origins remained unknown. However, its dating has been overturned by a series of recent findings.

A fossil form first identified in the nineteenth century, called Eunotosaurus, has lately been suggested as being the last common ancestor of turtles. Eunotosaurus was a land-dwelling lizard-like reptile with bone structure similar to that of turtles, hailing from Africa 260 million years ago.

Subsequently, transitional fossils between Eunotosaurus and Proganochelys have been discovered and are helping scientists understand how modern turtles connect to the reptiles of the Mesozoic Era, of which the Triassic was the first part.

In 2015, a pair of German researchers revealed Pappochelys, a semi-aquatic transitional turtle species dating back to 240 million years.

E. sinensis, discovered in south western China, is a two-and-a-half-metre complete fossil of a turtle ancestor that was without a fully developed shell. Dating back to 228 million years, it fits between Pappochelys and Odontochelys, but oddly shows much more pronounced turtle-like characteristics than the younger Odontochelys, having a head very similar to modern turtles and sporting the true turtle beak.

However, E. sinensis also has anatomical features that hark back to species predating Eunotosaurus, in what the authors call “an evolutionary reversal”.

While evidence is always welcome, the most recent find does little to clarify turtle evolution. If anything, it points to an increasingly complex story that will require a great deal more work to make sense of.

Yes, In my opinion, there is a lot of made up stuff going into this fairy tale story.
I think for the most part, it is due to blindness - not physical, of course, but also largely to the prior commitment.

 

[ratiocinator]

Where is your evidence for that?

Evidence for what? That a change in one letter of a sequence is just as likely in one direction as another? Seriously?

DNA repair - Wikipedia
In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with DNA repair - once again underlining the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this subject.

They are guessing. Always guessing, and making up stuff to support their belief.

Where is your evidence that anybody's guessing or making things up? How would you know if they were, give your near total ignorance of the theory itself?

One just has to pay attention, and be aware of what is being presented. The problem there is that the majority of the public, do not have a clue about any of this.

You have repeatedly shown that you haven't a clue about evolution and that you have been paying no attention to those who are attempting to explain it to you.

And you didn't answer my questions: Why would they do such a thing? What's the motivation? Who is organising this vast conspiracy? The people with the obvious vested interest here are those who object to evolution, almost all of which do so based primarily on religious belief - and they do lie.

 

[nPeace]

Evidence for what? That a change in one letter of a sequence is just as likely in one direction as another? Seriously?



What I said had absolutely nothing to do with DNA repair - once again underlining the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this subject.



Where is your evidence that anybody's guessing or making things up? How would you know if they were, give your near total ignorance of the theory itself?



You have repeatedly shown that you haven't a clue about evolution and that you have been paying no attention to those who are attempting to explain it to you.

And you didn't answer my questions: Why would they do such a thing? What's the motivation? Who is organising this vast conspiracy? The people with the obvious vested interest here are those who object to evolution, almost all of which do so based primarily on religious belief - and they do lie.

I did answer your question, in bold and large print, and you did not answer mine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that can be answered quite simply, but so as to be clear...
We can ask ourselves what Jesus meant when he said this... "Therefore, pay attention to how you listen, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.” (Luke 8:18)

Think back to the rich man. Was he following Jesus? No. Think about Jesus' words in connection to that man.
"Whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him."

I think we will both agree that these words refer to having knowledge of the "kingdom of heaven" Jewish idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is different than Jesus' btw. For Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven was the knowledge of spiritual matters within one's self. For Jews, the Kingdom of Heaven exists wherever God is obeyed. Some day the Kingdom of Heaven will exist on earth as well.

You know the rest.

Although I do not consider the gospels authoritative, nor do I think they accurately reflect the words of Jesus, I have studied them as an intellectual curiousity, as the foundation of the religion that pretty much runs the society in which I live. So yes, I'm familiar with all the parable, and I really don't find them hard to understand. All it really takes is the ability to understand figurative thought. The ability has nothing to do with whether one follows Jesus.

I think that last verse says a lot, in relation to your questions.

Actually you have not even begun to address my questions. What I expect from you is a LIST outlining the main teachings of Jesus that you feel are most pertinent to follow.

A person who hears Christ, but does not do what he says, is not a follower of Christ, are they.

To do everything Jesus said to do, one would have to be Jew. Are you a Jew?

They would understand that the Law was until the Christ, and thus the old covenant would be replaced. The Law of Moses would be replaced by the Law of Christ.

That is the opposite of what Jesus said. It appears you are NOT a follower of Jesus, by your own definition.

This is the problem. Every Christian and Messianic Jew claims to be a follower of Jesus, but you guys can't agree on what that means. You all have different interpretations. You pick and choose what verses to pay attention to and which to dismiss.