Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

You seem to be saying that there is no way to test creation ex nihilo directly; that the only way to validate creation ex nihilo is to invalidate evolution, since you cannot possibly fathom a third alternative. You believe creation ex nihilo is right because evolution is wrong.
Is that correct?

*Raises his hand* Oh, I know! I know! The Bible says... Wait, we can't rely on that! Forget that it has proven itself trustworthy with archaeology, fulfilled prophecy and accurate scientific type statements that were beyond normal comprehension at the time it was written.

Now since you choose to respond to the thread, I'm assuming in the interest of fellowship and open discussion, I would ask you to answer the question raised. Does the evolution of the human brain from that of apes qualify as a null hypothesis for Darwin's theory.

Answer or at least address the question artful dodger and I will be obliged to respond. I have told you what I think is testable and extensively tested in no uncertain terms. Now it falls on you to answer.

Thanks for the reply, marc. Thanks also for calling me an "artful dodger". I'm not really sure why you called me that, but I can really feel the fellowship! At the risk of perpetuating the moniker, I guess I had better answer your question...

I'm not really sure what you're referring to when you say "Darwin's theory". If you're referring to Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection, then no, I don't think that it's fair to say the evolution of the human brain from that of other apes qualifies as a null hypothesis of this theory. Evolution via natural selection posits that variation + heritability + differential reproduction = evolution. The evolution or non-evolution of the human brain in no way provides a test of this theory.

On the other hand, if you're referring to Darwin's theory that man descended from other apes, then yes, I think the null hypothesis works. The difficulty for ID proponents in testing this hypothesis, as I see it, is trying to distinguish between the current limits of our understanding of human brain evolution and genuine irreducible complexity. The two cannot be told apart. But I won't argue that here.

There are two primary lines of evidence, Paleontology and Comparative Genomics. We are being told 2 mya our ancestors were little more then big chimpanzees who used rock tools. Within a couple a hundred thousand years they had migrated north to Lake Turkana where Homo erectus had a fully developed human frame and only a slightly smaller cranium.

There is neither the time nor the means for this and yet no one in the academic or scientific communite dares question it, not even ID proponents.

You seem to be saying that there is no way to test creation ex nihilo directly; that the only way to validate creation ex nihilo is to invalidate evolution, since you cannot possibly fathom a third alternative. You believe creation ex nihilo is right because evolution is wrong.
Is that correct?

No it's not correct, I believe that the evolution of the human brain from that of apes is a null hypothesis for Darwinian evolution. You have again asked the same question that has already been answered and it's a rhetorical ploy, not an evidential approach to the subject of origins.

If you want positive evidence in support of an ex nihilo you have to look at the supportive evidence for the historicity of Scripture which is something I have never seen a skeptic do. I can get anti-creationist arguments all day long but when it comes to evidential logic evolutionists in general and TEs in particular resort to superficial rhetoric.

If you wish to pursue this formally, something I doubt very seriously, then you have only to ask. If you want to look at the positive evidence for an ex nihilo creation I warn you, it involves the reliability of the Scriptures as historical, primary source, documentation.

I'm not arguing in circles with you Mallon, either you want to take this seriously or I'm simply going to point out how highly conserved brain related genes are in reality. I know from extensive experience that you have nothing to counter except rhetoric and modernist philosophy.

Let's not go there.

I didn't come here to argue, mark. I came here to learn more about what you believe concerning human brain evolution, since I understand it as a particular hang-up of yours. I don't understand why you're acting so hostile, or why you feel the need to ignore some of my posts while responding to others twice. If you really don't want to have a respectful dialogue, just say so, and I'll leave.

Perhaps the reason why none of the experts are willing to address the problem of the timing and mechanism of human brain evolution is because there is no problem. I'm not allowed to defend alternative views here, but can I ask if you've ever written the relevant experts about your concerns? If so, who did you write and how did they respond?