Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mark kennedy" data-source="post: 70369648" data-attributes="member: 29337"><p>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.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. He built his career on that hoax and so did many others.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Thank you for your participation and I look forward to exploring these issues further with you if you persist.</p><p></p><p>Grace and peace,</p><p>Mark</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mark kennedy, post: 70369648, member: 29337"] 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. [INDENT][/INDENT] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. He built his career on that hoax and so did many others. 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. 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. 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. 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
Top
Bottom