Proposal: Human Brain Evolution

[mark kennedy]

I don't have proof that there are 40 million differences between the chimp and human genomes?

I don't have proof that the sequence of brain related genes differs between chimps and humans?

That comes to over 120 million base pairs, some of those indels would have had to be millions of base pairs long. Brain related genes like HAR1f and SRGAP2 are vastly different and highly conserved across any conceivable lineage based on direct comparison. No explanation other then a uniform reliance of a presuppositional positive selection.

Then why do you think the human and chimp brains are different sizes and different shapes? What is the cause of those physical differences if it is not the differences seen between their genomes?

Thats not only non-sequitur, it's non-sensible. The differences are evident, obvious and legion. The nature of those differences are the very reason skepticism is warranted, one critical reason being that the deleterious effects of mutations on such highly conserved genes would be devastating. One critical gene involved in the size of the brain between the 7th and 17th week of the development of the fetus is in one of the most divergent areas of the human genome as compared to apes.

Hold on a second. You are saying that if the natural process of mutation causes a specific mutation, then it is deleterious. However, if a deity produces that very same mutation then it isn't deleterious? How does that work?

I never claimed God created mutations, that's absurd. Shamelessly beating on a straw man argument isn't substantive, it's fallacious. One of the numerous fallacious tactics you persist in using.

No. Those are the observed differences. Whether a deity produced the difference or if natural processes produced the difference, they are still substitutions, indels, and recombinations.

No, a single base substitution happens when a single base pair is changed, this phenomenon is also known as a point mutation. Insertions and Deletions or when a sequence is inserted or deleted, generally these are changes of some length while a recombination or 'genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring' (Wikipedia).

The point is to assume the differences between the respective genomes are the result of these processes isn't proof, it's a priori presupposition, a predetermined fact not an empirical one.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

That comes to over 120 million base pairs, some of those indels would have had to be millions of base pairs long. Brain related genes like HAR1f and SRGAP2 are vastly different and highly conserved across any conceivable lineage based on direct comparison.

Which is it? Are they vastly different or highly conserved?

No explanation other then a uniform reliance of a presuppositional positive selection.

We haven't even arrived there yet. You claim that these genes can't be different, ever. So how do you explain the fact that they are different and neither humans nor chimps suffer because of it?

Thats not only non-sequitur, it's non-sensible. The differences are evident, obvious and legion. The nature of those differences are the very reason skepticism is warranted, one critical reason being that the deleterious effects of mutations on such highly conserved genes would be devastating. One critical gene involved in the size of the brain between the 7th and 17th week of the development of the fetus is in one of the most divergent areas of the human genome as compared to apes.

So you agree that the reason humans and chimps are different from each other is because our DNA is different? Yes/No?

I never claimed God created mutations, that's absurd. Shamelessly beating on a straw man argument isn't substantive, it's fallacious. One of the numerous fallacious tactics you persist in using.

If God didn't produce the differences between the chimp and human genomes, then what are you saying did produce those changes?

No, a single base substitution happens when a single base pair is changed, this phenomenon is also known as a point mutation. Insertions and Deletions or when a sequence is inserted or deleted, generally these are changes of some length while a recombination or 'genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring' (Wikipedia).

The point is to assume the differences between the respective genomes are the result of these processes isn't proof, it's a priori presupposition, a predetermined fact not an empirical one.

Again, we aren't even to that point yet.

You are claiming that any change to these genes can only result in disease. So how is it that these genes are different between species without causing disease?

 

[mark kennedy]

Which is it? Are they vastly different or highly conserved?

Both, that's not mutually exclusive unless you are trying to assume an accelerated evolution to explain the differences.

We haven't even arrived there yet. You claim that these genes can't be different, ever. So how do you explain the fact that they are different and neither humans nor chimps suffer because of it?

I claimed nothing of the sort, I only claim that mutations are the worst possible explanation.

So you agree that the reason humans and chimps are different from each other is because our DNA is different? Yes/No?

Of course I see that, my arguments are all based on genomic comparisons. This is getting worse over time.

If God didn't produce the differences between the chimp and human genomes, then what are you saying did produce those changes?

Sure if you will accept the inverse logic.

Again, we aren't even to that point yet.

I agree that your no where close.

You are claiming that any change to these genes can only result in disease. So how is it that these genes are different between species without causing disease?

That's what happens when you don't bother doing the reading. That's not what I said and I've argued this for years. The result of mutations in brain related genes is going to be disease and disorder the vast majority of the time, neutral or nearly neutral mutations not withstanding. It's not an explanation yet mutations account for most of the variability seen in nature.

I'm not going to bother with something in depth you are not bothering to read. Learn the actual evidence before staring to pontificate about it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Both, that's not mutually exclusive unless you are trying to assume an accelerated evolution to explain the differences.

They are mutually exclusive, and it has nothing to do with evolution. They are either all nearly the same, or they are vastly different. This would be true for creationism as well.

I claimed nothing of the sort, I only claim that mutations are the worst possible explanation.

Why are they the worst explanation?

Of course I see that, my arguments are all based on genomic comparisons. This is getting worse over time.

Then why do you say that changes in DNA sequence can only be detrimental?

Sure if you will accept the inverse logic.

Answer the question.

If you don't think God produced the genetic differences between species, then what are you saying is responsible for those differences?

That's what happens when you don't bother doing the reading. That's not what I said and I've argued this for years. The result of mutations in brain related genes is going to be disease and disorder the vast majority of the time, neutral or nearly neutral mutations not withstanding. It's not an explanation yet mutations account for most of the variability seen in nature.

What about mutations that would produce the differences we see between human and chimp genes? If mutations produced those differences, would those be beneficial mutations?

 

[mark kennedy]

They are mutually exclusive, and it has nothing to do with evolution. They are either all nearly the same, or they are vastly different. This would be true for creationism as well.

Why are they the worst explanation?

Then why do you say that changes in DNA sequence can only be detrimental?

Answer the question.

If you don't think God produced the genetic differences between species, then what are you saying is responsible for those differences?

That is quite enough, if you are interested in a formal debate this is my proposal:

Comparative studies: Fossils, anatomy, genomics.

The first round goes to what we know about the supposed common ancestor from fossil evidence, the second to comparative anatomy of human and chimpanzee anatomy, especially the brain. Finally comparative genomics, especially the divergence in vitally important genes.

Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to have the debate here. This is a proposal thread so if you have a counter proposal let's hear it, otherwise what do you think you are doing?

Have a nice day
Mark




What about mutations that would produce the differences we see between human and chimp genes? If mutations produced those differences, would those be beneficial mutations?[/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

That is quite enough, if you are interested in a formal debate this is my proposal:

Comparative studies: Fossils, anatomy, genomics.

The first round goes to what we know about the supposed common ancestor from fossil evidence, the second to comparative anatomy of human and chimpanzee anatomy, especially the brain. Finally comparative genomics, especially the divergence in vitally important genes.

Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to have the debate here. This is a proposal thread so if you have a counter proposal let's hear it, otherwise what do you think you are doing?

Have a nice day
Mark

I would love to have a formal debate. My only pre-requisite is that you produce a set of peer reviewed references that support your claims that the deleterious and beneficial mutation rate in brain related genes are beyond what evolution can handle. I am not going to debate someone who refuses to back their claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do this from time to time and evolutionists run for the trees but here goes. I am proposing a debate with an evolutionist who wants to defend the concept that the evolution of the human brain from that of apes has a molecular basis. Willing to discuss the specifics and the parameters of course, hoping for an honest open discussion.

As far as I can see, you still haven't explained what you mean by a 'molecular basis'. Humans and chimps are both made of molecules (i.e. they have a molecular basis), and they differ in the number, types, and arrangements of those molecules.

It's trivially true that any differences between things made of molecules have a 'molecular basis', so what do you mean?

Incidentally, you are aware, aren't you, that current evolutionary models suggest that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than humans deriving from chimps. There's no particular benefit in comparing them in terms of speculative evolution from one to the other.

 

[mark kennedy]

As far as I can see, you still haven't explained what you mean by a 'molecular basis'. Humans and chimps are both made of molecules (i.e. they have a molecular basis), and they differ in the number, types, and arrangements of those molecules.

A peculiar question, I'm interested in protein coding and regulatory genes, especially those related to brain development and neurogenesis.

It's trivially true that any differences between things made of molecules have a 'molecular basis', so what do you mean?

I sometimes forget that not everyone reads genetic research papers as a pass time. In a word divergence. The differences in The amino acid sequences for the protein coding genes and any differences in the single stranded regulatory genes.

Incidentally, you are aware, aren't you, that current evolutionary models suggest that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, rather than humans deriving from chimps. There's no particular benefit in comparing them in terms of speculative evolution from one to the other.

Well after the split there is no trace of the chimpanzee lineage with the exception of three teeth. The model depicting man and ape with shared lineage is my whole problem with Darwinian evolution, of course I'm aware of it.

All we have to go on are living chimpanzees for DNA comparisons. With no fossils to compare the hominid line to we are somewhat limited don't you think?

 

[mark kennedy]

I would love to have a formal debate. My only pre-requisite is that you produce a set of peer reviewed references that support your claims that the deleterious and beneficial mutation rate in brain related genes are beyond what evolution can handle. I am not going to debate someone who refuses to back their claims.

Nonsense, you can't prove a negative. You make some grandiose demand for proof that would be absolute and exhaustive or pretend I can't back the claim, it's intellectual sloth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The model depicting man and ape with shared lineage is my whole problem with Darwinian evolution, of course I'm aware of it.

You have a problem with humans, apes, and monkeys having a common ancestor, but not with humans having a common ancestor with all other forms of life on Earth?

All we have to go on are living chimpanzees for DNA comparisons. With no fossils to compare the hominid line to we are somewhat limited don't you think?

Why focus on chimps if there's so little fossil evidence of their lineage? Try going back a step to gorillas, or pongids, or gibbons. They all share a common ancestor with us, as do all other creatures.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have a problem with humans, apes, and monkeys having a common ancestor, but not with humans having a common ancestor with all other forms of life on Earth?

No, I'm a creationist I believe life was created about six thousand years ago. I believe in evolution as a natural phenomenon not as a universal law of all living lineages going back to some primordial bacterium.

Why focus on chimps if there's so little fossil evidence of their lineage? Try going back a step to gorillas, or pongids, or gibbons. They all share a common ancestor with us, as do all other creatures.

There is way more evidence surrounding chimpanzee and human comparative studies. What's more if man and ape do not have a common ancestry the rest of the tree of life become increasingly questionable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I'm a creationist I believe life was created about six thousand years ago. I believe in evolution as a natural phenomenon not as a universal law of all living lineages going back to some primordial bacterium.

There is way more evidence surrounding chimpanzee and human comparative studies. What's more if man and ape do not have a common ancestry the rest of the tree of life become increasingly questionable.

OK, thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nonsense, you can't prove a negative. You make some grandiose demand for proof that would be absolute and exhaustive or pretend I can't back the claim, it's intellectual sloth.

Then I take it that you won't be making the argument that evolution can't produce the genetic changes in brain related genes?

 

[Jimmy D]

Then I take it that you won't be making the argument that evolution can't produce the genetic changes in brain related genes?

Touche!

 

[mark kennedy]

Then I take it that you won't be making the argument that evolution can't produce the genetic changes in brain related genes?

I don't Chase fallacious questions in circle without reference to actual facts. Every mutation in brain related genes known to medical science is deleterious. The proof only require you look at any mutation in a brain related gene and you will find disease and disorder. Maybey you think epilipsi, cancer. tumors. schitsophrania, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's are adaptive on an evolutionary scale but science has demonstrated conclusively the exact opposite.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then I take it that you won't be making the argument that evolution can't produce the genetic changes in brain related genes?

No I don't chase pedantic rhetorical questions in circles. I call fallacious logic what it is, which is an argument that never happened. The only effects from mutations in brain related genes are cancer, tumors, Altzheimers, Parkinsons, epilipsi, schitzophrenia Huningtons and a long list of other. Since there are no known exceptions you inevitably resort to fallacious circular logic because you have nothing substantive. You have been told that mutation plus selection results in adaptive evolution but what science has shown us is the exact opposite

 

[Loudmouth]

The only effects from mutations in brain related genes are cancer, tumors, Altzheimers, Parkinsons, epilipsi, schitzophrenia Huningtons and a long list of other.

Can you cite a single scientific reference where they demonstrate that this is true?

Since there are no known exceptions . . .

The exceptions are the genetic differences between the brain related genes in the human and chimp genomes. You claim that these sequences can't be changed at all without causing disease. The fact that both chimps and humans get along just fine with differences in those genes proves you wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you cite a single scientific reference where they demonstrate that this is true?

This is what has happened, you did a quick Google search and found nothing but disease and disorder resulting from mutations in brain related genes. Now you have nothing but that circular question that demands a negative because all the positive proof indicates disease death and disorder. Welcome to the inevitable downward spiril.

The exceptions are the genetic differences between the brain related genes in the human and chimp genomes.

No the differences are just differences and the span both genome, differences unexplainable by any known naturalistic means. But because Darwinism can allow for no inverse logic raw redundant audacious fallacies are all you have.

You claim that these sequences can't be changed at all without causing disease. The fact that both chimps and humans get along just fine with differences in those genes proves you wrong.

No the fact of these differences proves separate lineage thus independent creation. Life has an author, finisher, designer and creator. The only way we have ever seen life emerge is from living parents following Mendelian laws of inheritance but like all Darwinians you have abandoned the science and sacrificed your God given reason to the Darwinian idols of the mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is what has happened, you did a quick Google search and found nothing but disease and disorder resulting from mutations in brain related genes. Now you have nothing but that circular question that demands a negative because all the positive proof indicates disease death and disorder. Welcome to the inevitable downward spiril.

I found differences in brain related genes that didn't cause disease. You refuse to address them.

No the differences are just differences and the span both genome, differences unexplainable by any known naturalistic means.

Why don't those difference produce devastating disease as you claim they should?

 

[mark kennedy]

I found differences in brain related genes that didn't cause disease. You refuse to address them.

First I've heard of it, you've been arguing that divergence between chimps and humans is proof. That is begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. Mutations in brai related gene produce disease death and disorders.

Why don't those difference produce devastating disease as you claim they should?

Because the differences were by design, they are different because they have been since the original creation.