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

Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same. More importantly, with brain related genes I have yet to see one that had a beneficial effect. These are the effects most often seen:

Charcot–Marie–Tooth (CMT) sensorimotor neuropathy
Infantile spasms, dystonia, and other X-linked phenotypes
Schizophrenia
Brain tumors
Alzheimer's disease
Parkinson's disease

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ One of Darwin’s contemporaries, Gregor Johann Mendel, was doing a series of experiments with pea plants that yielded the laws of inheritance that would become the cornerstone of modern genetics. Darwin’s book popularized the idea of common decent while Mendel’s only surviving paper would not be rediscovered for nearly half a century later. Mendelian laws of inheritance became inextricably linked to waves of discovery starting with chromosome theory and culminating in the molecular basis of heredity: The DNA double helix. Darwinism contributed nothing to the waves of discovery but was philosophically commingled with genetics in what has become known as the modern synthesis.

In order to examine the scientific basis for common descent I propose to examine the genetic basis for the common descent of humans from that of apes. The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Darwin discussed what he called the 'bane of horticulture', this was infertility. Haldane in 'The Cost of Natural Selection indicated "genetic deaths," which is either deaths or it's equivalents in reduced fertility. He said that it would take 300 generations for a beneficial mutation to become fixed with 1667 accrued in 10 million years.

Like Darwin, he used artificial selection to illustrate what would have had to happen in natural settings:

"especially in slowly breeding animals such as cattle, one cannot cull even half the females, even though only one in a hundred of them combines the various qualities desired." (Haldane, The Cost of Natural Selection)

For us to have evolved from apes it would have required an accelerated evolution of brain related genes. The evolution of the human brain would have had to start it's accelerated evolution on a molecular basis some 2 million years ago and within Homo Erectus (considered human by most creationists) would have had a brain size twice that of the Austropihicene and early Hominids:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(See Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5–1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)The ASPM gene while 99.3% the same for the human–chimpanzee comparison is marked by ten insertions/deletions equal to or longer than 50 bp, all of them located within introns. Primary microcephaly (MCPH) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by global reduction in cerebral cortical volume.(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003) In addition, a total of 2014 genes or ~10% of brain related genes analyzed differed in expression between humans and chimpanzees brains.(Genome Res. 14:1462-1473, 2004 ).

Evolutionists used to be able to use a 10 million year timeline, then it was 5 million years but when it comes to the most important adaptation you are looking at less then 1 million years and realistically it's only half that.

Darwin's null hypothesis for common descent is not unanswerable:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

If you take the road less traveled and choose to question common descent popularized by Darwin I submit that human brain evolution is prime topic. Darwin's theory is supposed to absolutely break down if a complex organ by decent with modification. My proposal is simply this, the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.


Grace and peace,

Mark

__________________

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Comparing the two shows very little in the ways of what you are trying to prove.

__________________

The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

From 5 million years until now the fossil record has no record of the lineage of chimpanzees but our supposed ancestors would have had a chimpanzee size brain about 2 mya:

AMONG mammals, humans have an exceptionally big brain relative to their body size. For example, in comparison with chimpanzees, the brain weight of humans is 250% greater while the body is only 20% heavier. The dramatic evolutionary expansion of the human brain started from an average brain weight of 400–450 g 2–2.5 million years (MY) ago and ended with a weight of 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY ago. This process represents one of the most rapid morphological changes in evolution. It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection, yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive.(Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003)

You will find that a brain weight of 400-450 g is the same size as a chimpanzees. Now would you like to address the genetic mechanism and time frame?

__________________

Making something bigger is not very difficult, genetically. Anything that might prolong the period of growth of the organ during the many times during a human being's life which the brain itself actually grows (which could be caused by quite a few factors) would accomplish it quite well.

In addition, while psychologists have identified many different lobes and specialised regions of the cerebral cortex, it is just as well known in psychology that these specialisations are not hard-wired into the genetics and are merely emergent properties. The brain has a high plasticity, meaning it has an incredible ability to specialise in new, different, ways even after all growth has ceased. A great example of this is phantom pain. For instance, an amputee may experience sensation in the lost limb when the cheek is touched because the part of the brain that used to process the sensation of touch in the lost limb, from disuse, re-specialised to processing touch on the cheek. In my psychology textbook, it even spoke of a documented case in which a psychologist 'mapped' the entire lost hand on the right cheek in an exhaustive procedure with a Q-tip.

__________________

The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

You say that despite the fact that it would require 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene that has only allowed 2 since the Cambrian. You say that despite the fact that the only effect of mutations on the ASPM gene is a reduced cranial capacity and it would have required ten insertions/deletions equal to or longer than 50 bp, all of them located within introns. All that despite the fact that there is not a single example of a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene known to modern science.

"For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate." It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans. Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event

Now one of the other factors would be gene expression which a comparisons is 10% different in human brain related genes as compared to chimpanzes. It's all in the OP.


All very interesting but I'm at a loss as to the relevance.

The fact remains that 2 mya our ancestors would have had chimpanzee size brains, within a couple of hundred thousand years it had doubled. The genetic basis for the unprecedented expansion of the human brain from that of apes remains unknown to science and yet remains unquestioned.

__________________

What alternative explanation would you suggest, mark? And how could it be tested?

__________________
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

-- Charles Darwin

*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.

__________________
Someone asked Will the heathen who have never heard the Gospel be saved? It is more a question with me whether we -- who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not -- can be saved. Charles Spurgeon

No need to be sarcastic, brother. This is a fellowship forum, remember?
OK. So you suggest we use the Bible to explain "the unprecedented expansion of the human brain from that of apes". What explanation would that be, and more importantly, how could we test it (1 Th 5:21)?

__________________
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

-- Charles Darwin

Special creation is the only alternative to descent with modification and there is ample research in this area:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step (Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution, by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma)

Darwin offers a null hypothesis for his theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.(Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

Darwin already indicated how this 'testable' null hypothesis would work.

1. An organ that could not have been formed by, 'numerous, successive, slight modifications.'
2. There has been little or no extinction.
3. Look to an organ common to all the members of a large class.
4. Discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has (or would have had to, emphasis mine) passed

My proposal is in the OP, your asking a question I already addressed

__________________

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?

__________________
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

-- Charles Darwin