Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution

What is Your Worldview?


  • Total voters
    10

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution. Comparative Genomics should have ended, or at least challenged, Darwinian evolution by now but it is exalted above all skepticism. The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history. The reason they are not isn't the weight of the evidence indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)​

This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass gravesite used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangatan jawbone. Even Louise Leakey, the famous paleontologist has said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.


These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes:

The evolutionary time separating human and macaque (20–25 million years) is grossly comparable to that separating rat and mouse (16–23 million years)…214 such genes in all of the four taxa chosen…

Increases in brain size and complexity are evident in the evolution of many primate lineages…However, this increase is far more dramatic in the lineage leading to humans than in other primate lineages…

accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development, represents a salient genetic correlate to the profound changes in brain size and complexity during primate evolution, (Molecular Evolution of the Human Nervous System. Bruce T. Lahn et al. Cell 2004)​

That was probably the broadest comparison of brain related genes between apes and humans shortly after the unveiling of the findings of the Human Genome Project in 2001. Since then they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).

The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:
  • 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
  • A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
  • Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above)

Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)​

In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes Plod 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

All responses are welcome, fallacious arguments will be identified and recorded as neutral. All substantive arguments will be addressed, in as much as I'm able, and I have a plan to ensure nothing gets buried in this thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution...

This is where I'm recording response categories, especially the inevitable fallacious retorts.

Fallacious Rhetoric:

1 (#4) Some non-sequitur inferences but largely a to the man argument. Ad hominem
2 (#8) An almost complete abandonment of the evidence, focus on the one making the argument. Ad hominem
3. (#11) Jack is a jerk argument compared to Jack is wrong and is a jerk. The heart of the emphasis, in fact, the whole argument is Jack is a jerk. A substantive argument would be why Jack is wrong and whether or not he is a jerk irrelevant. Ad hominem
4. (#16) Begging the question of the quote but argues against an argument I haven't made. Strawman.
5. (#17) Natural methodology and naturalistic assumptions not the same thing. Equivocation.
[All the same guy is doing is, feigning indignation, fallacious rhetoric...there's one in every thread]
6. (#33) Ad hominem, same pedantic taunt he always uses.
7. (#34) Ad hominem, correcting something not in error.

Points made in the OP
  • HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
  • SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
  • 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.
The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy.

taung3.jpg

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
...but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:
Given the number of theists of all stripes--not just Christians--working as scientists in the field of evolution, this is just slander. It destroys the credibility of what whatever is to follow, but let's keep looking to make sure.


This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass gravesite used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangatav jawbone. Even Louise Leaky, the famous paleontologist has said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.
Talk about theatrics! The Piltdown discovery was never the "flagship" of anything, was never fully accepted by the scientific community and the hoax was exposed by scientists themselves, not Creationists.

I'll let somebody else pick apart the rest of this post, if they think it's worth the time. I'm done reading it.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution. Comparative Genomics should have ended, or at least challenged, Darwinian evolution by now but it is exalted above all skepticism.
If by "Darwinian Evolution" you are referring to how Darwin himself thought evolution worked, that has been challenged and is greatly outdated and different from modern evolutionary theory (especially if you include all of his proposals after he published the Origin of Species). However, when people compare the genomes of species, we do see a degree of similarity that goes well beyond chance (overall, completely unrelated species should, by random chance, share about 25% of the same sequences as each other. Humans and chimpanzees share more than 90% of the same sequences in their DNA. What do you think the logical conclusion of that should be?). To give an example of a more modern idea challenged by comparing genomes, it used to be thought that Neanderthals were a direct ancestor to modern humans. Fortunately, some Neanderthal DNA was actually found preserved, and after comparing the sequences to that of a modern human, it was concluded that Neanderthals were NOT an ancestor of modern humans (though in specific human populations, some say they find Neanderthal sequences).


The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history.
Not really. For one thing, it was never assumed prior to evidence being discovered that supported that idea that it was the case. Secondly, universal common decent is not a prerequisite for evolution being valid, nor would the specifics of the process have to change if universal common decent was disproven. It just happens to be a concept well supported by evidence.

The reason they are not isn't the weight of the evidence indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:
People literally started studying nature to learn more about "the glory of the creation" of various deities, the Christian God included. When evidence that went against the preconceptions established by religions was found, many scientists couldn't reconcile with it, others straight up denied or hid it, and a few had the nerve to try to publish while on their death beds. In modern times, the only reason people take any issue with the theistic explanations is if people try to claim that they are the best, most well evidenced explanations... which they aren't. There isn't even solid evidence that deities exist, let alone that they created anything, so claiming that such an explanation is superior to far more well-evidenced ones is completely unscientific. It's much less of animosity, and more annoyance.


This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass gravesite used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangatav jawbone. Even Louise Leaky, the famous paleontologist has said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.
I know it has already been addressed, but Piltdown man was a fraud never accepted within the scientific community, and it was the scientific community that revealed the fraud, not creationists. Science is about trying to learn factual information about the world around us. Hence why frauds are considered extremely heinous within the scientific community, and the punishments for fraudulence generally being expulsion from the scientific community.

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man.
And that would have been a problem why? The absence of a transitional fossil doesn't disprove evolution. In fact, fossils could have never formed, and the theory would still stand, and through genetic comparisons, we'd still have concluded that humans evolved from a shared ancestor with chimpanzees. The fossil record is just part of the evidence for evolution.

Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leaky that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.
I just want to know where you are getting this history from. I'm not finding it.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil.
I looked this man up. His career was DESTROYED by Piltdown man. His acclaim in science was due to him previously discovering the part of the heart that controls heartbeat, and ideas about how culture could influence evolution in humans.

When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologize to Dart and Leaky would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impass became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leaky’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.
Skull too small to be a human ancestor, what? That doesn't make any sense, unless you are referring to the fact that at the time, the some members of the scientific community thought that the brain developed before bipedal movement (which fossil evidence was beginning to conflict with, and would eventually disprove). Yes, so the early human ancestors were bipedal apes with small brains.

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?
You mean these? https://images.sciencedaily.com/2007/05/070514174240_1_900x600.jpg They do exist, we just are a kinda self-centered species, so we care more about our evolution and put those fossils more in the spotlight.

That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.
Need I remind you of Neanderthals?


These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional.
Hahahahaha, by definition, all fossils are transitional, because evolution is a continuous process. The human population right now is slowly transitioning into something else.

They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes:

The evolutionary time separating human and macaque (20–25 million years) is grossly comparable to that separating rat and mouse (16–23 million years)…214 such genes in all of the four taxa chosen…

Increases in brain size and complexity are evident in the evolution of many primate lineages…However, this increase is far more dramatic in the lineage leading to humans than in other primate lineages…

accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development, represents a salient genetic correlate to the profound changes in brain size and complexity during primate evolution, (Molecular Evolution of the Human Nervous System. Bruce T. Lahn et al. Cell 2004)​

That was probably the broadest comparison of brain related genes between apes and humans shortly after the unveiling of the findings of the Human Genome Project in 2001. Since then they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).

The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:
  • 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
  • A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
  • Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above)
Humans and other apes have variation in this gene, yes? In fact, if this gene is worth noting to you, I'd say that was obvious. Now, the version we normally see in humans doesn't cause huge issues like decreased mental capacity, right? Obviously, not ALL possible changes to the gene would be negative, now would they be, for if that were the case, this gene would just be detrimental and so strongly selected against as to not be present in humans at all, or would be the same in all species that had the gene.

Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)​

In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes Plod 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes.
Most mutations do absolutely nothing. In face, redundancy in codons means that entirely different gene sequences can code for the exact same protein. Furthermore, more than 5% of mutations can be shown to be demonstrably beneficial to some extent, thanks to studies with fruit flies.

You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.
Negatory, evolution is much more like a "give and take" with what is beneficial being contingent upon the environment an organism is trying to survive in. For example, one of the reasons humans have such large brains is thanks to a brain growth regulating gene (which is functional in other modern apes) acquiring a mutation that makes it entirely nonfunctional. The result was larger brains, but also an increased likelihood of brain cancers. The benefit of the intelligence just happened to improve survival and reproduction chance more than the increased cancer reduced it.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Given the number of theists of all stripes--not just Christians--working as scientists in the field of evolution, this is just slander. It destroys the credibility of what whatever is to follow, but let's keep looking to make sure.

Not everyone who buys into Darwinian evolution is an atheist, never suggested they were. What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry can be traced back to Charles Darwin who credited Lamarck for unholding:

'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It is all too typical that the opening response would be an ad hominem attack on credibility. I never equivocate Darwinian evolution with atheistic materialism only point out that God as cause of anything, 'organic or inorganic' is categorically rejected.

Talk about theatrics! The Piltdown discovery was never the "flagship" of anything, was never fully accepted by the scientific community and the hoax was exposed by scientists themselves, not Creationists.

First of all Creationism as we know it hardly existed at the time this hoax was perpetrated. The fact is that this was a very famous transitional fossil in a time when there were few such finds. Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not above using hyperbole in one of these debates, I also readily admit I enjoy a little satire from time to time. Calling this the great hoax perpetrated in paleontology is not only not an exaggeration, the investigating scientists said the same thing in no uncertain terms:

"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum"...On November 20, 1953, they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum. The scientists of 40 years before, they explained, had been victims of "a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. The faking of the mandible [jawbone]," they wrote, "is so extraordinarily skillful and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable as to find no parallel in the history of paleontological discovery." (Piltdown Man is revealed as fake 1953 A Science Odyssey, PBS)
The Washington Post listed it a one of the five most Scientific famous hoaxes of all time, along with The Cardiff Giant and an archaeoraptor fraud, See Five of the most famous scientific hoaxes Washington Post 2015

You shouldn't have needed a scientist to figure this out, it was a human skull taken from a mass grave site in Sussex England that had been a mass grave site during the Black Plague. Even Louis Leaky looked at it and said the jaw didn't belong with that skull yet from 1912 to 1953 it was considered a transitional fossil, there was even a Piltdown Man exhibit at the Smithsonian.

I'll let somebody else pick apart the rest of this post, if they think it's worth the time. I'm done reading it.

You have a non-sequitur argument since who discovered the hoax is irrelevant. But at the heart of the emphasis the fallacy in play is clearly ad hominem. Congratulations, you introduced the first fallacious rhetoric, in dramatic fashion to the discussion. I appreciate that, it is one of the most important points I want to make with the thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Not everyone who buys into Darwinian evolution is an atheist, never suggested they were. What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry can be traced back to Charles Darwin who credited Lamarck for unholding:

'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It is all too typical that the opening response would be an ad hominem attack on credibility. I never equivocate Darwinian evolution with atheistic materialism only point out that God as cause of anything, 'organic or inorganic' is categorically rejected.
You can't get out of it that easily. How do you explain the large number of theistic scientists who believe, each in a way appropriate to his faith, that God is the ultimate cause of our existence? All Darwin's statement asserts is that evolution proceeds in accord with natural law, not that there is no divine causality. What is rejected, with good reason, is not divine causality but special creation of the "kinds" or, alternatively, the puerile divine tinkering of ID.



First of all Creationism as we know it hardly existed at the time this hoax was perpetrated. The fact is that this was a very famous transitional fossil in a time when there were few such finds. Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not above using hyperbole in one of these debates, I also readily admit I enjoy a little satire from time to time. Calling this the great hoax perpetrated in paleontology is not only not an exaggeration, the investigating scientists said the same thing in no uncertain terms:

"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum"...On November 20, 1953, they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum. The scientists of 40 years before, they explained, had been victims of "a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. The faking of the mandible [jawbone]," they wrote, "is so extraordinarily skillful and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable as to find no parallel in the history of paleontological discovery." (Piltdown Man is revealed as fake 1953 A Science Odyssey, PBS)
The Washington Post listed it a one of the five most Scientific famous hoaxes of all time, along with The Cardiff Giant and an archaeoraptor fraud, See Five of the most famous scientific hoaxes Washington Post 2015
Being notorious is not the same as being a critical piece of evidence for evolutionary biology. Did you really think we wouldn't notice the sleight-of-hand?




You have a non-sequitur argument since who discovered the hoax is irrelevant. But at the heart of the emphasis the fallacy in play is clearly ad hominem. Congratulations, you introduced the first fallacious rhetoric, in dramatic fashion to the discussion. I appreciate that, it is one of the most important points I want to make with the thread.
No, I didn't make an argument, ad hominem or otherwise. I just called you on a couple of snarky insinuations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If by "Darwinian Evolution" you are referring to how Darwin himself thought evolution worked, that has been challenged and is greatly outdated and different from modern evolutionary theory (especially if you include all of his proposals after he published the Origin of Species). However, when people compare the genomes of species, we do see a degree of similarity that goes well beyond chance (overall, completely unrelated species should, by random chance, share about 25% of the same sequences as each other. Humans and chimpanzees share more than 90% of the same sequences in their DNA. What do you think the logical conclusion of that should be?). To give an example of a more modern idea challenged by comparing genomes, it used to be thought that Neanderthals were a direct ancestor to modern humans. Fortunately, some Neanderthal DNA was actually found preserved, and after comparing the sequences to that of a modern human, it was concluded that Neanderthals were NOT an ancestor of modern humans (though in specific human populations, some say they find Neanderthal sequences).

I don't know if you are aware, Neanderthals are said to have interbreed with anatomically modern humans. The general definition for species includes distinctly different species that can no longer interbreed. That means Neanderthals and humans were at least as closely related then Troglodytes and Bonobos or Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears since both of those species can still interbreed.

As anatomically modern human (AMH) groups left Africa and began to spread across Europe and Asia ~60,000 years ago, they encountered other archaic hominins. The fossil record suggests that AMHs and several archaic hominins overlapped in space and time (1), and genomic analyses of modern and ancient humans, and extinct Neandertals and Denisovans have revealed interbreeding between these groups . As a result, the genomes of modern Eurasians contain a small fraction (~1.5–4%) of DNA inherited from interbreeding with Neanderthals around 50,000 years ago . (The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals Science. 2016 Feb 12)
As far as our DNA as compared to Chimpanzees extensive comparisons have been published showing a widening gap between the respective genomes.

  • Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
  • Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by two amino acids, one per lineage.
  • The human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. Nature 2005)
Most estimates would put the sequence identity at around 96%, with dramatic differences genome wide:

  • A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected.
  • Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 2004)

Not really. For one thing, it was never assumed prior to evidence being discovered that supported that idea that it was the case. Secondly, universal common decent is not a prerequisite for evolution being valid, nor would the specifics of the process have to change if universal common decent was disproven. It just happens to be a concept well supported by evidence.

Evolution is a phenomenon not a theory, the theory of evolution is nothing more then Darwinian universal common ancestry. Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, the Darwinian, 'theory of evolution', popularized by Darwin, Lamarck and other Naturalists has never been anything other then one long argument against creation.

People literally started studying nature to learn more about "the glory of the creation" of various deities, the Christian God included. When evidence that went against the preconceptions established by religions was found, many scientists couldn't reconcile with it, others straight up denied or hid it, and a few had the nerve to try to publish while on their death beds. In modern times, the only reason people take any issue with the theistic explanations is if people try to claim that they are the best, most well evidenced explanations... which they aren't. There isn't even solid evidence that deities exist, let alone that they created anything, so claiming that such an explanation is superior to far more well-evidenced ones is completely unscientific. It's much less of animosity, and more annoyance.

Actually it's a bias, one that has echoed down through the ages. What this really comes down to is a philosophy of natural history correctly called Darwinism and the clear testimony of Scripture. This isn't about what science has been discovering but what Natural Science insisted on at the outset of the Scientific Revolution before any of the evidence we see was even found.

There’s nothing worse than the deification of error, and it is a downright plague of the intellect when empty nonsense is treated with veneration. Yet some of the moderns have been so tolerant of this emptiness that they have—what a shallow performance!—tried to base a system of natural philosophy (Francis Bacon. The New Organon 1620)​

What we are talking about here is exclusively naturalistic causes, assumed a priori. I would agree that the world view he is ridiculing so venomously is based on the Scriptures but would include the testimony of the New Testament to the list of proof texts. Both Darwinism and Creationism are philosophies regarding history and they are obviously mutually exclusive. The only way this can be decided is to carefully examine the evidence and come to an informed conclusion.
I know it has already been addressed, but Piltdown man was a fraud never accepted within the scientific community, and it was the scientific community that revealed the fraud, not creationists. Science is about trying to learn factual information about the world around us. Hence why frauds are considered extremely heinous within the scientific community, and the punishments for fraudulence generally being expulsion from the scientific community.

The Piltdown hoax was replaced by the Taung Child and a string of other supposed transitionals, that have transposed into the Homo habilis stone age, tool wielding ape man myth. This world view never goes away regardless of the actual evidence, they just evolve to accommodate it's long standing presuppositions.

And that would have been a problem why? The absence of a transitional fossil doesn't disprove evolution. In fact, fossils could have never formed, and the theory would still stand, and through genetic comparisons, we'd still have concluded that humans evolved from a shared ancestor with chimpanzees. The fossil record is just part of the evidence for evolution.

Darwin suggested two logical disproofs of his theory.

Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps....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 1859)

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”(Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
I know of one such transition of a complex organ, the human brain evolving from that of an ape.

I just want to know where you are getting this history from. I'm not finding it.

In Louis Leaky's 'Latest News From Oldovia Gorge' he credits Raymond Dart with coining the phrase 'handy man'. Sir Arthur Keith had rejected Dart's find as an immature ape but would, right around the time of the demise of the Piltdown hoax, admit Dart was right all along after basing his career on it.

Dart named his find Australopithecus africanus (“southern ape of Africa”). He judged the skull to be that of a juvenile individual and it came to be known as the Taung Child. Dart was convinced even then that he had made the “early human find” of the century. In a paper published in the journal Nature (Dart 1925), he argued that A. africanus represented a missing link between apes and humans since it combined humanlike teeth and upright posture with a small cranial capacity. This assertion was roundly rejected by European anthropologists, in particular by Sir Arthur Keith, who dismissed his South African colleague’s specimen as the skull of a immature ape. Keith himself, however, had been taken in by the Piltdown Man hoax (as had Dart’s former mentor Grafton Elliot Smith) which had led many scientists to believe early humans had apelike jaws and a large brain — the reverse has turned out to be the case.

In the end, Keith was forced to admit — “Dart was right, and I was wrong.” (Raymond Dart Biography)​

I looked this man up. His career was DESTROYED by Piltdown man. His acclaim in science was due to him previously discovering the part of the heart that controls heartbeat, and ideas about how culture could influence evolution in humans.

Oh but there is a lot more to it then that.

Skull too small to be a human ancestor, what? That doesn't make any sense, unless you are referring to the fact that at the time, the some members of the scientific community thought that the brain developed before bipedal movement (which fossil evidence was beginning to conflict with, and would eventually disprove). Yes, so the early human ancestors were bipedal apes with small brains.

The skull, actually an endocast, would have been small even for a Chimpanzee. It was about 405cc, that is a far cry from the human brain that is something like three times that size.

You mean these? https://images.sciencedaily.com/2007/05/070514174240_1_900x600.jpg They do exist, we just are a kinda self-centered species, so we care more about our evolution and put those fossils more in the spotlight.

Sure looks a lot like a Chimpanzee to me:

taung3.jpg



Need I remind you of Neanderthals?

Need I remind you that they could interbreed with human ancestors? That and oh btw, they had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.

Humans and other apes have variation in this gene, yes? In fact, if this gene is worth noting to you, I'd say that was obvious. Now, the version we normally see in humans doesn't cause huge issues like decreased mental capacity, right? Obviously, not ALL possible changes to the gene would be negative, now would they be, for if that were the case, this gene would just be detrimental and so strongly selected against as to not be present in humans at all, or would be the same in all species that had the gene.

Most mutations do absolutely nothing. In face, redundancy in codons means that entirely different gene sequences can code for the exact same protein. Furthermore, more than 5% of mutations can be shown to be demonstrably beneficial to some extent, thanks to studies with fruit flies.

Negatory, evolution is much more like a "give and take" with what is beneficial being contingent upon the environment an organism is trying to survive in. For example, one of the reasons humans have such large brains is thanks to a brain growth regulating gene (which is functional in other modern apes) acquiring a mutation that makes it entirely nonfunctional. The result was larger brains, but also an increased likelihood of brain cancers. The benefit of the intelligence just happened to improve survival and reproduction chance more than the increased cancer reduced it.

I'll get into the gene comparisons when we sort through the transitional fossils. The OP has some pretty solid lines of evidence, two transitionals that look more like chimpanzees then humans. Two highly conserved genes that would have had to undergo major overhauls and 60 brain related genes that would have had to be produced de novo, by some presently unknown process. Your right, most mutations are neutral but they represent the single biggest source of genomic variation. Most of the ones that do have an effect are deleterious and the rarest of mutations have only a marginal beneficial effect that are almost never adaptive on an evolutionary scale.

While there were holes in your argument big enough to drive a truck through, my compliments on a lucid and candid response.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Before I proceed, what are your parameters for identifying a fallacious argument?
I think it comes down to subject and predicate, the subject is your opponent and the predicate is something negative. Like all logical fallacies the reasoning is divorced from anything substantive. An ad hominem is really just an insult inserted where an actual argument should be and these threads are generally plagued with them. It's part of the dramatic theater that permeates Darwinian rhetoric.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I think it comes down to subject and predicate, the subject is your opponent and the predicate is something negative. Like all logical fallacies the reasoning is divorced from anything substantive. An ad hominem is really just an insult inserted where an actual argument should be and these threads are generally plagued with them. It's part of the dramatic theater that permeates Darwinian rhetoric.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
You evidently still don't know what an ad hominem argument is. Consider the two statements:

"Joe's argument is false and he is a jerk."

and

"Joe's argument is false because he is a jerk."

The second is an ad hominem argument. The first is just an insult.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't know if you are aware, Neanderthals are said to have interbreed with anatomically modern humans. The general definition for species includes distinctly different species that can no longer interbreed. That means Neanderthals and humans were at least as closely related then Troglodytes and Bonobos or Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears since both of those species can still interbreed.
I brought it up in my own response: only certain modern human populations have any Neanderthal ancestry from this hybridization, so considering Neanderthals to be an ancestral species to the whole of our own would be fallacious. Also, closely related and ancestral are different things.


As far as our DNA as compared to Chimpanzees extensive comparisons have been published showing a widening gap between the respective genomes.

  • Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
  • Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by two amino acids, one per lineage.
  • The human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. Nature 2005)
Most estimates would put the sequence identity at around 96%, with dramatic differences genome wide:

  • A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected.
  • Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 2004)
So, I am wondering: how is any of this refuting my point? I told you the shared sequences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees was more than 90%, and you are saying 96%. Anything significantly above 25% indicates some degree of relation between species. So, what's refuting me, the genes, which your numbers have within the 20 percents of CHANGE? That means that between 70-80% of those genes (which aren't even the majority of the DNA sequences) are SHARED between humans and chimpanzees; that's well over 25%, even if only genes mattered in determining relatedness. The noncoding portions are actually more reliable for measuring it, since natural selection usually doesn't act upon them.​



Evolution is a phenomenon not a theory, the theory of evolution is nothing more then Darwinian universal common ancestry. Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, the Darwinian, 'theory of evolution', popularized by Darwin, Lamarck and other Naturalists has never been anything other then one long argument against creation.
Not really; evolution is an explanation for the observed changes in the populations of organisms over time. Evolution didn't establish the time scale that conflicts with a 6 day creation; you can thank geologists from before the theory of biological evolution existed for that. You are acting as if this is some personal attack against your religion, with no actual motivation for that being the case. Who would sell their eternal soul to make Christianity look wrong if it wasn't? It's illogical to willfully cover up a truth for temporary gain that leads up to eternal punishment. So, I conclude that, even if one day Christianity as a whole is demonstrated to be accurate, the current evidence we can observe doesn't suggest that it is the case. Furthermore, consider the possibility that your ancient religious text did get it wrong, and that in such circumstances, the evidence definitely wouldn't match up with what the Bible says.


Actually it's a bias, one that has echoed down through the ages. What this really comes down to is a philosophy of natural history correctly called Darwinism and the clear testimony of Scripture. This isn't about what science has been discovering but what Natural Science insisted on at the outset of the Scientific Revolution before any of the evidence we see was even found.

There’s nothing worse than the deification of error, and it is a downright plague of the intellect when empty nonsense is treated with veneration. Yet some of the moderns have been so tolerant of this emptiness that they have—what a shallow performance!—tried to base a system of natural philosophy (Francis Bacon. The New Organon 1620)​

What we are talking about here is exclusively naturalistic causes, assumed a priori. I would agree that the world view he is ridiculing so venomously is based on the Scriptures but would include the testimony of the New Testament to the list of proof texts. Both Darwinism and Creationism are philosophies regarding history and they are obviously mutually exclusive. The only way this can be decided is to carefully examine the evidence and come to an informed conclusion.
Natural causes for how populations change over time is all we observe. It's what we have evidence for. Scientists are not going to assert that an unobserved, supernatural being did anything, because science only covers the natural world. Also, the theory of evolution is not a philosophy, and Darwinism is a term creationists made up because no matter how many times people try to explain it, the fact that how one thinks humans came to be has no inherent bearing on morality or philosophical outlook goes in one ear and out the other. I would be thrilled if there was evidence for an afterlife, or deities, and nothing about being an evolution supporter makes me less open to any evidence for such things.​


The Piltdown hoax was replaced by the Taung Child and a string of other supposed transitionals, that have transposed into the Homo habilis stone age, tool wielding ape man myth. This world view never goes away regardless of the actual evidence, they just evolve to accommodate it's long standing presuppositions.
I saw the image of the Taung child you put up. Thank you, college anatomy class and functional eyes; that piece of skull depicts a creature with a far flatter face than a chimpanzee; I agree that they are similar in size, but here's this for you to chew on: who says only humans got bigger brains down the evolutionary line? Inevitably, if you go back far enough, human ancestors would have brains about the size of those of chimps, and smaller if you go back further. I mean, we share ancestry with sea sponges, which don't have brains at all, so again, what's the problem here?


Darwin suggested two logical disproofs of his theory.

Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps....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 1859)

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”(Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
I know of one such transition of a complex organ, the human brain evolving from that of an ape.
Darwin is not the authority on his theory, which has CHANGED over time as well. He got a lot wrong, and most of his original contributions have been heavily edited or discarded. Why would his proposed ideas of how the theory still be valid when it is effectively no longer the same theory? Darwin hasn't been an authority in the theory of evolution for over 100 years; he's just a part of it's history now. Now, why not challenge the modern world more, and the mid to late 1800s less.


In Louis Leaky's 'Latest News From Oldovia Gorge' he credits Raymond Dart with coining the phrase 'handy man'. Sir Arthur Keith had rejected Dart's find as an immature ape but would, right around the time of the demise of the Piltdown hoax, admit Dart was right all along after basing his career on it.

Dart named his find Australopithecus africanus (“southern ape of Africa”). He judged the skull to be that of a juvenile individual and it came to be known as the Taung Child. Dart was convinced even then that he had made the “early human find” of the century. In a paper published in the journal Nature (Dart 1925), he argued that A. africanus represented a missing link between apes and humans since it combined humanlike teeth and upright posture with a small cranial capacity. This assertion was roundly rejected by European anthropologists, in particular by Sir Arthur Keith, who dismissed his South African colleague’s specimen as the skull of a immature ape. Keith himself, however, had been taken in by the Piltdown Man hoax (as had Dart’s former mentor Grafton Elliot Smith) which had led many scientists to believe early humans had apelike jaws and a large brain — the reverse has turned out to be the case.

In the end, Keith was forced to admit — “Dart was right, and I was wrong.” (Raymond Dart Biography)​
Keith wasn't "taken in" by the Piltdown man hoax; he's considered the most likely candidate as the person who MADE the fake fossil.

Also, it was not Piltdown man that made people think early humans had ape-like jaws; Piltdown man had ape like jaws because that was already the expectation people had for a human ancestor fossil at the time.


Oh but there is a lot more to it then that.



The skull, actually an endocast, would have been small even for a Chimpanzee. It was about 405cc, that is a far cry from the human brain that is something like three times that size.



Sure looks a lot like a Chimpanzee to me:

taung3.jpg





Need I remind you that they could interbreed with human ancestors? That and oh btw, they had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.
That doesn't make Neanderthals human, more intelligent than humans, or ancestors of ALL humans. I already went through the skull pictured earlier, so I won't repeat myself. Humans have ancestors with brains smaller than those of modern chimpanzees.


I'll get into the gene comparisons when we sort through the transitional fossils. The OP has some pretty solid lines of evidence, two transitionals that look more like chimpanzees then humans. Two highly conserved genes that would have had to undergo major overhauls and 60 brain related genes that would have had to be produced de novo, by some presently unknown process. Your right, most mutations are neutral but they represent the single biggest source of genomic variation. Most of the ones that do have an effect are deleterious and the rarest of mutations have only a marginal beneficial effect that are almost never adaptive on an evolutionary scale.
Incorrect, while benign mutations are the rarest, they have shown to have positive impacts for populations numerous times, from bacteria that gain a defense from an environmental hazard, to a species of lizard in modern times whose digestive system changed to process the foods available in an island they were introduced to, to an extended family of humans with bones so strong that it was noticed when a man endured a car crash that should have broken numerous bones walked away without even a bone fracture.

While there were holes in your argument big enough to drive a truck through, my compliments on a lucid and candid response.

Grace and peace,
Mark
Well, that compliment was backhanded.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would say, that the study of disease genetics do provide a lens to evaluate the likelihood of natural evolution in a gene. Well done.

I could produce a pretty extensive list of disease alleles related to genetic mutations:

Alzheimer's. APOE-e4 is the first risk gene identified, and remains the gene with strongest impact on risk. APOE-e4 is one of three common forms of the APOE gene; the others are APOE-e2 and APOE-e3. (The Search for Alzheimer’s Causes and Risk Factors)

Parkinson. Familial cases of Parkinson disease can be caused by mutations in the LRRK2, PARK2, PARK7, PINK1, or SNCA gene, or by alterations in genes that have not been identified. Mutations in some of these genes may also play a role in cases that appear to be sporadic (not inherited). (Parkinson Disease)

Multiple Brain Disorders. Mutations in genes that control proteins that interact with the fragile X mental retardation protein were also more common in the schizophrenia patients. The researchers also identified gene mutations in the schizophrenia patients that overlap with those mutated in autism and intellectual disability. (De Novo Gene Mutations Linked to Schizophrenia)
I think this is a bigger issue then anecdotal brain related gene mutations. I bring up 60 de novo brain related genes that mark a supposed giant leap for adaptive evolution, but let's be fair, de novo gene adaptations do happen. Case in point, the arctic cod antifreeze gene:

So, what does this case tell us about the evolution of new genes? This AFGP gene is one of a very few newly invented genes that have arisen by processes other than duplication or exon-shuffling whose evolutionary history can be traced with confidence. (Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution. PNAS 1997)
What is fascinating about this is that this gene co-evolved at least three times:

Atlantic herring (Order Clupeiformes), smelt (Order Salmoniformes), and sea raven (Order Scorpaenoformes): the genes have evolved at least three times (Ewart K V, Fletcher G L. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1993)
There is just one problem, this is a protein produced from simple repeats. The dynamics grow increasingly complicated when you are talking about highly conserved protein coding and regulatory genes. I think there must be adaptive molecular mechanisms involved but how much can we rely on them as an explanation for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes? The known effects of mutations on the human brain makes this giant leap in adaptive evolution problematic at best.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You can't get out of it that easily. How do you explain the large number of theistic scientists who believe, each in a way appropriate to his faith, that God is the ultimate cause of our existence? All Darwin's statement asserts is that evolution proceeds in accord with natural law, not that there is no divine causality. What is rejected, with good reason, is not divine causality but special creation of the "kinds" or, alternatively, the puerile divine tinkering of ID.

No it's far more sweeping then that:

'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Being notorious is not the same as being a critical piece of evidence for evolutionary biology. Did you really think we wouldn't notice the sleight-of-hand?

Here you have not only abandoned the actual evidence but decided to focus exclusively on me. Like I said, subject = opponent, predicate = negative remarks. Now that, in and of itself is not ad hominem, it's when it's exclusive and isolated from actual arguments that the fallacious nature of the rhetoric can be clearly identified.

No, I didn't make an argument, ad hominem or otherwise. I just called you on a couple of snarky insinuations.

No you dismissed the presuppositions at the heart of Darwinian evolution and chose to focus on making personal remarks toward me apart from the substance of the actual arguments. Yet another ad hominem, it's always disappointing to see a poster resort to such fallacious rhetoric so early and so often.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I brought it up in my own response: only certain modern human populations have any Neanderthal ancestry from this hybridization, so considering Neanderthals to be an ancestral species to the whole of our own would be fallacious. Also, closely related and ancestral are different things.

Splitting hairs I see, that begs the question of why our ancestors could interbreed with them. I know why, it's because they were human.
So, I am wondering: how is any of this refuting my point? I told you the shared sequences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees was more than 90%, and you are saying 96%. Anything significantly above 25% indicates some degree of relation between species. So, what's refuting me, the genes, which your numbers have within the 20 percents of CHANGE? That means that between 70-80% of those genes (which aren't even the majority of the DNA sequences) are SHARED between humans and chimpanzees; that's well over 25%, even if only genes mattered in determining relatedness. The noncoding portions are actually more reliable for measuring it, since natural selection usually doesn't act upon them.

Refute it? I was simply expanding on the details, there isn't enough here to refute. The truth is that only 29% of our genes are identical. Genes do not respond well to mutations and highly conserved genes, particularly brain related genes, do not respond well at all. The protein coding products showed indications of gross structural changes (differences really) so there's another can of worms you managed to dismiss without consideration. That doesn't even begin to address some 60 de novo (brand new) genes involved in brain related functions. Not a lot there to refute, your effectively conceding my point by omission.

Not really; evolution is an explanation for the observed changes in the populations of organisms over time. Evolution didn't establish the time scale that conflicts with a 6 day creation; you can thank geologists from before the theory of biological evolution existed for that. You are acting as if this is some personal attack against your religion, with no actual motivation for that being the case. Who would sell their eternal soul to make Christianity look wrong if it wasn't? It's illogical to willfully cover up a truth for temporary gain that leads up to eternal punishment. So, I conclude that, even if one day Christianity as a whole is demonstrated to be accurate, the current evidence we can observe doesn't suggest that it is the case. Furthermore, consider the possibility that your ancient religious text did get it wrong, and that in such circumstances, the evidence definitely wouldn't match up with what the Bible says.

If that were the case I would have been a theistic evolutionist a long time ago. The truth is that the evidence is telling us that the divergence between chimpanzees and humans would require an extraordinary giant leap in adaptive evolution. The historicity of Scripture is largely irrelevant but your right about one thing, I do believe the real history and origin of life in general and man in particular is told there by the only one who can tell the story. God did make his revelation through imperfect prophets and preserved it though imperfect scribes, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But there are larger questions regarding epistemology and philosophies of history at play here. Mine is an evidential argument based almost exclusively on the genomic research in the scientific literature quoted, cited and linked in the opening post. Something you have managed to avoid, but don't worry, I'll keep reminding you of it.

Natural causes for how populations change over time is all we observe. It's what we have evidence for. Scientists are not going to assert that an unobserved, supernatural being did anything, because science only covers the natural world. Also, the theory of evolution is not a philosophy, and Darwinism is a term creationists made up because no matter how many times people try to explain it, the fact that how one thinks humans came to be has no inherent bearing on morality or philosophical outlook goes in one ear and out the other. I would be thrilled if there was evidence for an afterlife, or deities, and nothing about being an evolution supporter makes me less open to any evidence for such things.

I would like nothing better then to be able to persuade you of the path to eternal life through Christ. Unfortunately that is something only God can do and that is between you and the God who made you. Darwinism is a term that is used to describe the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics and scientists that long ago rejected God as the cause of anything in the organic and inorganic world, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Evolution on the other hand is loosely defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, Darwinism was blended with population genetics during the Modern Synthesis thus the equivocation with evolution. I am simply exploring the evidence I have found in comparative genomics and paleontology and making an argument that Darwinism has failed to make there case.

I will say this, I have never forgotten that the inverse logic is intuitively obvious. If creation is one possibility then inverse logic must stand as the only viable alternative. They are mutually exclusive and more importantly, logic dictates that they are forever the only two possible alternatives and you can't logically argue for one without accepting the inverse logic. That's something I have never seen a Darwinian do.

I saw the image of the Taung child you put up. Thank you, college anatomy class and functional eyes; that piece of skull depicts a creature with a far flatter face than a chimpanzee; I agree that they are similar in size, but here's this for you to chew on: who says only humans got bigger brains down the evolutionary line? Inevitably, if you go back far enough, human ancestors would have brains about the size of those of chimps, and smaller if you go back further. I mean, we share ancestry with sea sponges, which don't have brains at all, so again, what's the problem here?

Yea I seen your image that was linked to and I'm likewise unimpressed. All I said was, it sure looks like a chimpanzee to me and there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the morphology that can't be accounted for by normal changes over time. That is of course if we are talking about comparing ancient apes to modern one. Apes and humans are a very different story.

Darwin is not the authority on his theory, which has CHANGED over time as well. He got a lot wrong, and most of his original contributions have been heavily edited or discarded. Why would his proposed ideas of how the theory still be valid when it is effectively no longer the same theory? Darwin hasn't been an authority in the theory of evolution for over 100 years; he's just a part of it's history now. Now, why not challenge the modern world more, and the mid to late 1800s less.

You can scarcely find a discussion of the 'theory of evolution' that does not make mention of Charles Darwin and Lamarck, there is a reason for that. Darwinism has become inextricably linked to the 'theory of evolution' through the Modern Synthesis. It seriously puzzles me that Darwinians went to so much trouble to permanently establish his philosophy of natural history as 'the theory of evolution' and so many evolutionists act like they have never heard of him.

Keith wasn't "taken in" by the Piltdown man hoax; he's considered the most likely candidate as the person who MADE the fake fossil.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. He built his career on that hoax and so did many others.

Also, it was not Piltdown man that made people think early humans had ape-like jaws; Piltdown man had ape like jaws because that was already the expectation people had for a human ancestor fossil at the time.

They took a human skull out of a mass grave from the Black Plague and put it with an orangutan jaw. They deliberately painted and grown down the teeth and a whole lot of other things. No one knows who really perpetrated the fraud but it was the prevailing transitional for almost a half a century.

That doesn't make Neanderthals human, more intelligent than humans, or ancestors of ALL humans. I already went through the skull pictured earlier, so I won't repeat myself. Humans have ancestors with brains smaller than those of modern chimpanzees.

I think the fact that their cranial capacity being 10% greater then our own is telling, especially when Taung and Lucy were dramatically smaller. The Neanderthal fossils were found from Iraq to Spain which would seem to indicate a migration pattern. Eden was in modern Iraq and the Ark would have touched down on Ararat which is modern Turkey.

Incorrect, while benign mutations are the rarest, they have shown to have positive impacts for populations numerous times, from bacteria that gain a defense from an environmental hazard, to a species of lizard in modern times whose digestive system changed to process the foods available in an island they were introduced to, to an extended family of humans with bones so strong that it was noticed when a man endured a car crash that should have broken numerous bones walked away without even a bone fracture.

Be careful to guard against equivocating mutations, which are really copy errors, with adaptive evolution. I'm aware that things adapt over time but I credit molecular mechanisms we are only beginning to understand. Of course, I see this as divine providence and not necessarily divine intervention. We can talk about all the adaptive evolution you like and I do enjoy those kind of discussions. But let's be honest here, genetic mutations are the worst possible explanation for the evolution of brain related genes in the adaptive evolution of the human brain from that of apes.

Well, that compliment was backhanded.

I would like to be clear here, I was not being patronizing and that compliment was sincere I assure you. I appreciate a straight forward, honest response regardless of whether I agree with the conclusion or the substance. It is so much better then the shrill ad hominem attacks that invariably haunt these discussions.

Thank you for your participation and I look forward to exploring these issues further with you if you persist.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No it's far more sweeping then that:

'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​
No, it is not more sweeping than that. Darwin's very words undercut your assertion.​



Here you have not only abandoned the actual evidence but decided to focus exclusively on me. Like I said, subject = opponent, predicate = negative remarks. Now that, in and of itself is not ad hominem, it's when it's exclusive and isolated from actual arguments that the fallacious nature of the rhetoric can be clearly identified.
You have no "actual evidence" that The Piltdown discovery was critical to the theory of evolution, only evidence that it was a notorious hoax. All I did was point that out. I did not express any opinion about you, personally.



No you dismissed the presuppositions at the heart of Darwinian evolution...
That would be false. The only "presupposition at the heart of Darwinian evolution" is the one you quote Darwin as stating--that the universe operates according to the laws of nature. That I do not dismiss.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Darwinism is a term that is used to describe the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics and scientists that long ago rejected God as the cause of anything in the organic and inorganic world, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.
Rejected the routine miraculous intervention of God as proximate Efficient cause of anything in the organic and inorganic world, to be exact. And the correct term used to describe that "naturalistic assumption" is methodological naturalism, not Darwinism. Calling it Darwinism is your invention, or perhaps that of your co-religionists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rejected the routine miraculous intervention of God as proximate Efficient cause of anything in the organic and inorganic world, to be exact. And the correct term used to describe that "naturalistic assumption" is methodological naturalism, not Darwinism. Calling it Darwinism is your invention, or perhaps that of your co-religionists.
Well your switching it up, equivocating a methodology with naturalistic assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it is not more sweeping than that. Darwin's very words undercut your assertion
Begging the question, you say that with absolutely no reference to the text.

You have no "actual evidence" that The Piltdown discovery was critical to the theory of evolution, only evidence that it was a notorious hoax. All I did was point that out. I did not express any opinion about you, personally.

Strawman, I never said Piltdown jeopardized the 'theory of evolution. I said, based on source material, it's one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time. Then I suggested that Taung and Lucy are chimpanzee ancestors. You haven't addressed anything substantive, your just confronting me with fallacious rhetoric. For a guy who refused to read the OP you seem to think a lot of your opinions regarding it.

What you should know about the Piltdown hoax is that it was the center piece of a bogus human family tree for half a century. There is a reason for that:

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)​

That would be false. The only "presupposition at the heart of Darwinian evolution" is the one you quote Darwin as stating--that the universe operates according to the laws of nature. That I do not dismiss.
The universe is subordinate to the one who created it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
You shouldn't have needed a scientist to figure this out, it was a human skull taken from a mass grave site in Sussex England that had been a mass grave site during the Black Plague. Even Louis Leaky looked at it and said the jaw didn't belong with that skull.

Where did you get this from? It's not in any of the books that I have read about Piltdown. By the way, it's Leakey, not Leaky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0