• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

tas8831

tas8831

Well-Known Member
dad said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Soon she will be complaining for the 77th time that published science has too much "jargon" in it....
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
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"?
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell me how it contradicts, because I don't see it.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
nPeace said:
Why don't you tell me how it contradicts, because I don't see it.
Click to expand...
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

nPeace

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
nPeace said:
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?
Click to expand...
So how exactly are you defining "slight" modification?

Do you understand that mutations are demonstrably not rare?
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
So how exactly are you defining "slight" modification?

Do you understand that mutations are demonstrably not rare?
Click to expand...
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).
 
dad

dad

Undefeated
tas8831 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
nPeace said:
They are rare. I am open to you showing otherwise.
Click to expand...
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?)

nPeace said:
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).
Click to expand...
Please be more specific, then. Define what a mutation that is useful on the macro level would look like.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
nPeace said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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"?
 
Last edited:
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

ImmortalFlame said:
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"?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did use the wrong term, but again I was thinking in a relative sense. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
nPeace said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

nPeace said:
I can't define any mutation that can be useful on the macro level. Is there anyone who can?
Click to expand...
If you can't define it, then how can you claim they are rare?

nPeace said:
This is different to the micro level, where a cat may pass on a genetic modification, in say, eye color, etc.
Click to expand...
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)?

nPeace said:
Perhaps I did use the wrong term, but again I was thinking in a relative sense. Sorry.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top