Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

[mark kennedy]

We have been told for decades that we are nearly identical to Chimpanzees in our DNA, it's simply not true. That is vitally important when it comes to the human brain since the genes involved in the development of the brain do not respond well to changes of any kind, especially mutations. The human brain is almost three times bigger then the Chimpanzee and there are dramatic differences in the brain related genes. With that in mind consider whether or not the evolution of the human brain from that of apes has any known molecular basis. If not, do you think this creates a logical and scientific disproof of the Darwinian doctrine that men and apes share a common ancestor?

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

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

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

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Ancestors:

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

(See Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark

Since you have made innumerable threads by cutting and pasting this, I'll reply with the reply I just wrote to the copy you put in the main physical sciences section:

Are you just going to cut and paste abstracts?
Mark

You write that, mark, when you just cut and pasted the whole OP, from the last time you posted the exact same thread, from years ago, right here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-null-hypothesis-for-darwins-theory.7260803/ ???

Wow.

Remember that time, your "misunderstanding" was fully explained to you - did you forget all that?

I see you even again hid a bunch of skulls so as to misrepresent the data. Remember, that the last several times you hid data that way, it's been pointed out?

One example where you cut and pasted the same false "gap", and were corrected, is here, from 2011:

You post the "gap" Post #32:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/#post58420143

Your misrepresentation is corrected, post #34.

Want more? A simple search using the search engine in the upper right shows plenty of times you've cut and pasted the same misrepresentations, and been corrected.

And now we have yet another of mark's cut and past misleading threads.

In Christ-

Papias
***************

P.S. The link for the identical thread in the physical sciences section is: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...l-hypothesis-for-darwinian-evolution.7947175/ mark, how many times have you cut and pasted this same misrepresentation? I've lost count, so could you help me out with a number?

 

[mark kennedy]

Since you have made innumerable threads by cutting and pasting this, I'll reply with the reply I just wrote to the copy you put in the main physical sciences section:

Of course, my interest is in human brain evolution, genomics and anatomy. No reason to reinvent the wheel every time just looking for something to prime the pump.

You write that, mark, when you just cut and pasted the whole OP, from the last time you posted the exact same thread, from years ago, right here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-null-hypothesis-for-darwins-theory.7260803/ ???

Of course I know where I got it.

Remember that time, your "misunderstanding" was fully explained to you - did you forget all that?

I know you like to beg the question of proof but fully explained is little more then hyperbole. I usually have to drag a substantive response out of you, especially when it comes to genomics.

I see you even again hid a bunch of skulls so as to misrepresent the data. Remember, that the last several times you hid data that way, it's been pointed out?

I know you like to spam scattergrams but the specifics of Hominid fossils, especially OH skulls elude you.

One example where you cut and pasted the same false "gap", and were corrected, is here, from 2011:

You post the "gap" Post #32:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/#post58420143

Your misrepresentation is corrected, post #34.

Oh wow, Shernren's Dmanisi fossils he claimed were between 650cc and 800cc but that was before they discovered an actual complete skull instead of fragments.

ER1470 with a cranial capacity of 752-810 cc lived about 1.89 mya.
ER1805 with a cranial capacity of 582 cc lived about 1.85 mya.
Dmanisi A with a cranial capacity of about 775-780 cc lived about 1.8 mya.
Dmanisi B with a cranial capacity of about 650 cc lived about 1.8 mya.
ER3733 with a cranial capacity of about 800-850 cc lived about 1.78 mya.
KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) with a projected adult cranial capacity of about 910 cc lived about 1.6 mya.
ER3883 with a cranial capacity of about 800-850 cc lived about 1.57 mya.
Sangiran 4 with a cranial capacity of about 750-900 cc lived about 1 mya.
Trinil 2 with a cranial capacity of about 850-1000 cc lived about 0.9 mya.

Source: Variation in hominid brain size: How much is due to method?

First of all the link in the quote is no longer useful. This one will work though, it's really interesting stuff.

Variation in hominid brain size: How much is due to method?

I asked him about it once when he just popped in one day, but he was busy.

The site of Dmanisi, Georgia, has yielded an impressive sample of hominid cranial and postcranial remains, documenting the presence of Homo outside Africa around 1.8 million years ago. Here we report on a new cranium from Dmanisi (D4500) that, together with its mandible (D2600), represents the world's first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene. D4500/D2600 combines a small braincase (546 cubic centimeters) (Science Vol 342, Issue 6156 18 October 2013)​

Just exactly what you would expect of such a robust gracial skull, it's much closer to a Chimpanzee skull but never considered one of their ancestors.

Want more? A simple search using the search engine in the upper right shows plenty of times you've cut and pasted the same misrepresentations, and been corrected.

And now we have yet another of mark's cut and past misleading threads.

Don't bother with the links, let's just deal with specifics.

P.S. The link for the identical thread in the physical sciences section is: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...l-hypothesis-for-darwinian-evolution.7947175/ mark, how many times have you cut and pasted this same misrepresentation? I've lost count, so could you help me out with a number?

Yea, it's an oldie but a goodie. Interesting how many times you have simply posted links instead of actually dealing with the subject matter.

Here is the actual problem:

Big Brains Require an Explanation.

About 2mya the nearly threefold expansion of the human brain from that of apes happens almost over night. Really not seeing a lot of cause and effect explanations, just a lot of speculative scenarios and of course the molecular basis is completely unknown.

Have a nice day
Mark