Throwing 1,000 Consecutive Heads

[Caroljeen]

I know I can prove that it happens. I have previously given you the example of the lactase persistence mutations, which are present in about one third of the human population. There are also the various high altitude/low oxygen adaptations found in the Himalayas, the Andes and in East Africa.

Science has the evidence. You have theology.

You speak as though theology is a bad thing. Science doesn't have all of the answers to phenomena in the natural world and none of the answers to the deeper things of the spiritual, invisible world.

 

[CrowCross]

Here's one study:
"When assuming FGM, we estimate that 14% of new nonsynonymous mutations in humans are beneficial. The majority (98%) of these beneficial mutations have small selection coefficients, with s < 0.0005 (Fig. 4C). In Drosophila, however, the model including positive selection had a similar fit to the data as the plain gamma DFE (SI Appendix, Table S4), and only 1.5% of new mutations are beneficial (Fig. 4D)."

They are also measuring how beneficial (selection coefficient) mutations are.

Source

I know I can prove that it happens. I have previously given you the example of the lactase persistence mutations, which are present in about one third of the human population. There are also the various high altitude/low oxygen adaptations found in the Himalayas, the Andes and in East Africa.

Science has the evidence. You have theology.

Both of you are giving me nothing.

If you can't show me a series of beneficial mutations being selected then adding up to form a trait....then simply say you can't do it.

 

[Caroljeen]

Both of you are giving me nothing.

If you can't show me a series of beneficial mutations being selected then adding up to form a trait....then simply say you can't do it.

Why can't one mutation form a trait?

 

[CrowCross]

Why can't one mutation form a trait?

Are you saying one mutation can turn a fish fin into a leg?

 

[rossum]

You speak as though theology is a bad thing. Science doesn't have all of the answers to phenomena in the natural world and none of the answers to the deeper things of the spiritual, invisible world.

In a discussion of evolution, theology carries less weight than science.

Theology starts from complete knowledge -- the text of whatever scripture is relevant. There follow arguments about how that scripture is to be interpreted.

Science starts from imperfect knowledge, so as well as arguments about how to interpret the knowledge we do have, science also needs to be able to incorporate newly discovered knowledge. Theology lacks the flexibility to incorporate changing knowledge.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Both of you are giving me nothing.

You questioned why 1%, so I gave you a scientific paper with actual numbers. Why exactly is that nothing?

If you can't show me a series of beneficial mutations being selected then adding up to form a trait....then simply say you can't do it.

One step at a time. Do you agree that a single beneficial mutation will spread throughout a population, as rossum and/or the paper I cited show?

 

[Nathan P]

Thank you AN for confirming that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years.

You are talking to oecs here and not yecs.

 

[Nathan P]

Paleontologists have discovered that new animal forms almost always appear abruptly--not gradually--in the fossil record, without any obvious connections to the animals that came before. Explore Evolution, p. 22 About 530 million years ago, more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record.

And they can not figure out that the fossil evidence is saying they were created and more than likely they did not evolve?

 

[Eightcrackers]

You speak as though theology is a bad thing. Science doesn't have all of the answers to phenomena in the natural world and none of the answers to the deeper things of the spiritual, invisible world.

Having an answer is not the same as having the answer.

 

[Eightcrackers]

In a discussion of evolution, theology carries less weight than science.

Theology starts from complete knowledge -- the text of whatever scripture is relevant. There follow arguments about how that scripture is to be interpreted.

Science starts from imperfect knowledge, so as well as arguments about how to interpret the knowledge we do have, science also needs to be able to incorporate newly discovered knowledge. Theology lacks the flexibility to incorporate changing knowledge.

"Theology does not gain knowledge", is another way of putting it...

 

[Nathan P]

Bwahahaha! No major signs? Really? Archaeopteryx had teeth, no modern birds have teeth. Archaeopteryx had a bony tail, no modern birds have a bony tail.

Dinosaurs had teeth. Dinosaurs had bony tails.

Here is a chart for you to learn from:

                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae

Having teeth is not a sign of having evolved from another species and instead shows their differences. And we are talking about evidence of one type of teeth having evolved from a different type of teeth.

 

[rossum]

Having teeth is not a sign of having evolved from another species and instead shows their differences. And we are talking about evidence of one type of teeth having evolved from a different type of teeth.

You will have noticed from my chart that early birds, post Archaeopteryx also had teeth. the bony tail was lost before the teeth were lost.

Sometimes teeth are all you have to work from, see conodonts for an example.