Win a debate against evolution every time.

[KhaosTheory]

Probably the same reason all those missing links lead to the Cambrian explosion are not there. Why does a lot of those layers that suppose to be millions of years old have very little sign of erosion between the layers?

I'm not following... Why should there be a certain amount of erosion... Wait... Don't change the subject.

Why does the fossil record show a seemless transition from simple to more diverse life the higher you go in the rock layers?

 

[jilfe]

Excuse me for a moment, you guys have a great discussion going on hee,

but I feel the Holy Spirit wants me to jump in here to interject this, than you guys can continue on with your discussion.

As Christians we have the Holy Bible to be our lifes roadmap.

Please prove it with scriptures that God used evolution to bring about His creation.
Show the whole Christian community on this forum , the scriptural verses that proves God used evolution.

Thankyou.

You guys can go back to your discussion now...

God Bless...
　

 

[KhaosTheory]

Excuse me for a moment, you guys have a great discussion going on hee,

but I feel the Holy Spirit wants me to jump in here to interject this, than you guys can continue on with your discussion.

As Christians we have the Holy Bible to be our lifes roadmap.

Please prove it with scriptures that God used evolution to bring about His creation.
Show the whole Christian community on this forum , the scriptural verses that proves God used evolution.

Thankyou.

You guys can go back to your discussion now...

God Bless...
　

Why would you think there should be anything in The bible explaining how natural selection works?

Do you look for bible verses to explain how the strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons together?

Do you think NASA had to flip through the good book to find the proper velocity and trajectory for a successful moon landing?

Where in the bible was quantum particle/wave duality revealed?

You see, God created this wonderfully complex universe for a reason. He wanted us to explore and learn about it so that we might marvel at his power.

He didn't just spoon feed us everything we needed to know in His revelation.

The bible is meant as a spiritual guide not as a science textbook.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[jilfe]

Hello,

Please
show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate God using evolution with these versus written in Genesis?

Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thankyou.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Hello,

Please
show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate God using evolution with these versus written in Genesis?

Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen:1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thankyou.

Those verses can be interpreted many different ways I'm sure..

But I'm no theologian. I'm interested in the science behind creation.

And the science completely and unequivocally supports the notion that God designed the universe with just the right properties to allow for self-replicating chemicals to give rise to life...

And equally, there is no question that this life has diversified on this planet over a very, very long time.

Furthermore, there is no reasonable reason to doubt that we humans were given some form of special revelation by our creator at some point in our evolution from our hominid ancestors.

and now we are thinking, breathing creatures who have been given the ability to look up and reach out to God in a way that none of His other creations can.

 

[Papias]

To answer the OP, asking how information is created will not "win a debate" against evolution, because the way new information is made has been found and shown in many examples. First, here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12

Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC

Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC

Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (there are many documented cases of this, and more are being published all the time).

Jilfe wrote:

Please
show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate God using evolution with these versus written in Genesis?

That sounds like you are expecting your Bible to be a science book, which sets Christianity up to look bad, unless, of course, you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate diseases being caused by germs with any of the verses of scripture, and unless you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate the Earth being a sphere with any of the verses of scripture, and unless you can show the Christian community on this forum how do you equate the moon being held in palce by gravity with any of the verses of scripture.

Khaos wrote:

But I'm no theologian. I'm interested in the science behind creation.

And still, there are plenty of Christian theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, who do see evolution in those verses. Here are some:

Protestant: BioLogos
Catholic: Pope Benedict: Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church


Papias

 

[samaus12345]

The 'Cambrian explosion' is Noahs flood burying everything in mud and killing it.

 

[samaus12345]

Papias you just described DOWN SYNDROME. Cant even find a literature for that lizard article on NCBI...they didnt even cite one in the article....they depend on peoples ignorance to just read it and put blind faith in it. The reason evolutionary biologists steer clear of defining the genome in terms of information is because it makes clear how delusional the neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis really is.

 

[KhaosTheory]

The 'Cambrian explosion' is Noahs flood burying everything in mud and killing it.

That was a joke right?

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

Papias you just described DOWN SYNDROME.

Um, no. I said "gene" duplication, not "chromosome" dupication. A gene is smaller than a chromosome, and we all have literally hundreds of duplicated genes. There are hundreds to thousands of genes on each chromosome (depending on which you look at). Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, containing about two dozen thousand genes.

However, even chromosome duplications happen, and are not always harmful. Jinx, chromosomal duplications and such are often harmful, as you point out, but are not always harmful. There are literally millions of people with them who have no harmful health effects, and many examples can be seen in among other animals as well. For instance, Przewalski's wild horse has 66 chromosomes due to a chromosome duplication, and is healthy (and can breed with domesticated horses, who have 64 chromosomes - again with no harm).

The fact that those who understand genetics agree that gene (and even chromosome) duplication is a common (for genes) method of information increase and variation should help us all get past thinking that the harmful cases (like Down syndrome for chromosomal changes) are all that there is - of course they aren't.

Cant even find a literature for that lizard article on NCBI...they didnt even cite one in the article....they depend on peoples ignorance to just read it and put blind faith in it.

Could you paste where it is mentioned? Maybe we can help you.

The reason evolutionary biologists steer clear of defining the genome in terms of information is because it makes clear how delusional the neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis really is.

Um, what? They don't avoid discussing the information - they even list genomes by gigabyte size. However, since so much of the genomes are clearly unneeded, any prudent person would balk at saying this is all functional information. It sounds like you are saying "because I don't understand genetics, I want you think that common descent is delusional."

Btw - do you understand that "neodarwinian" is not the same as "common descent", which is what I think you are disagreeing with, right?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (there are many documented cases of this, and more are being published all the time).

Gene duplication has also been implicated in several human neurological disorders.

MECP2 Duplication Syndrome Gene. MECP2 is the main gene known to be associated with MECP2 duplication syndrome. Duplication of MECP2 is usually the underlying mechanism.

Disease characteristics. The MECP2 duplication syndrome is a severe neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by infantile hypotonia, severe mental retardation, poor speech development, progressive spasticity...​

There are others but Papias is right, gene duplication has been associated with speciation and often have no negative effects. It's actually a fascinating subject.

Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period.

The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes.​

Relaxed functional constraint sends up some warning flags for me, it's risky.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh BTW, I know a couple of ways to win a debate with an evolutionist.

1) Point out the effects of mutations, especially with regards to the human brain.
2) Point out their naturalistic assumptions and the will generally have a melt down.
3) Demand a definition for 'Science' and 'Evolution', then ask them why words that mean 'knowledge' and 'change' are opposed to 'Creation', because they are not.
4) Ask them where the chimpanzee ancestors are in the fossil record.
5) If Christian ask them about miracles, no self respecting Darwinian will ever admit to believing in a miracle.
6) Ask them if things in common between two species indicate common ancestry, then do differences indicate separate linage. They never allow inverse logic but scientifically there always has to be a null hypothesis (a way to disprove a theory)

 

[KhaosTheory]

6) Ask them if things in common between two species indicate common ancestry, then do differences indicate separate linage. They never allow inverse logic but scientifically there always has to be a null hypothesis (a way to disprove a theory)

Let's say they made 5,000 Pontiac Firebirds but only one of them was red. the rest were blue or something...

Does that mean the red one still isn't a full General Motors Pontiac Firebird?

Of course not. Just because a species has different traits than it's cousins or ancestors doesn't mean it's not from the same family.

What makes them part of the same family is the fact that they ONLY share traits in common with their relatives and not of any other group.

It's too late for me to explain this to you any clearer... I don't see how you are missing this... but I'm tired. good night.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's say they made 5,000 Pontiac Firebirds but only one of them was red. the rest were blue or something...

Does that mean the red one still isn't a full General Motors Pontiac Firebird?

Of course not. Just because a species has different traits than it's cousins or ancestors doesn't mean it's not from the same family.

What makes them part of the same family is the fact that they ONLY share traits in common with their relatives and not of any other group.

It's too late for me to explain this to you any clearer... I don't see how you are missing this... but I'm tired. good night.

That's not the question, if the things we have in common with the chimpanzee indicate common ancestry (homology argument), do differences indicate independent lineage? In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Case in point, the old saw that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the Chimpanzee has been conclusively proven to be false. It's 96% at best by the latest and most extensive genomic comparisons:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that 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 and comparison with the human genome

So when the size and number of the differences in the chimp/human DNA double the mutation rate since the common ancestor doubles right?

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common....The average mutation rate was calculated from the average autosomal rate of evolution assuming a generation time of 20 years

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (see Table 1).​

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times (t) and different ancestral population sizes (Ne)

Now, pay attention because we are not talking about Firebirds here, we are talking about mutation rates with devastating disease, disorder and death a likely and common result:

If the mutation rate needed for the differences at 1.3% high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations, what happens when it is found to be over three times that?

In other words, if the homology argument that we have so much in common with the chimpanzee that it strongly supports common ancestry. Then, when the differences are so great that the effect on fitness is too high, does that indicate evidence for independent creation?

Bottom line, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Think carefully about that one because evolutionists have no answer for this. It is devastating for the assumption of universal common ancestry when the truth sets in so consider carefully the implications.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KhaosTheory]

That's not the question, if the things we have in common with the chimpanzee indicate common ancestry (homology argument), do differences indicate independent lineage? In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious?

Well, not a completely different lineage. But, yes, our ancestors definitely diverged from the chimp's ancestors. We are cousins to chimpanzees, not direct descendants of them. This is what the morphology and genetics evidence tells us.

Case in point, the old saw that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the Chimpanzee has been conclusively proven to be false. It's 96% at best by the latest and most extensive genomic comparisons:

So? 96% still puts us firmly in the same phylum, class, order, and family as chimps. That how phylogenetic taxonomy works...

We have less is common with bonobo apes than chimpanzess, and less in common with cats than other apes, and less in common with cows than we have with cats, and less in common with mice than we have with cows, and less in common with fruit flies than we have with cows, and less in common with bananas as we have with fruit flies!

Gene Cuisine: Human DNA similarities to chimps and bananas, what does it mean?

These genetic findings fit perfectly with what we find in the fossil record. That is to say that we never find fossils of ape ancestors below cat ancestors or cow ancestors below mice ancestors and so on...

To me, this evidence is undeniable. It's one thing if we just looked at the surface similarities/differences and then guessed at how we should classify stuff.

I'll concede that to you! It might just be a huge coincidence that everything fits perfectly on a branching tree of life when we just examine the morphological traits! Fine! You win!

But when modern genetics AND the fossil record unequivocally match the predictions we make from taxonomy, I don't know how you can deny it.

So when the size and number of the differences in the chimp/human DNA double the mutation rate since the common ancestor doubles right?

I'm not sure about all that... I don't feel like I have to discuss the complicated genetic stuff with you right now. I just woke up!

Besides, I can prove my point by just using basic knowledge of taxonomy, paleontology, and genetics without having to dive down into the nitty-gritty stuff.

Now, pay attention because we are not talking about Firebirds here, we are talking about mutation rates with devastating disease, disorder and death a likely and common result:

If the mutation rate needed for the differences at 1.3% high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations, what happens when it is found to be over three times that?

In other words, if the homology argument that we have so much in common with the chimpanzee that it strongly supports common ancestry. Then, when the differences are so great that the effect on fitness is too high, does that indicate evidence for independent creation?

Again, you are getting down into complicated genetic stuff and we don't even need to go there.

I don't think you are aware of the many mechanisms available that can remove deleterious mutations from a gene pool.

You seem to think that negative mutations just keep building up but this just doesn't happen.

One mechanism is even mentioned by God. "male and female"

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In nature, severely mutated individuals often reproduce less and thus keep the gene pool clean of their mutations.

Even today this happens. How many severely genetically handicapped people do you know that have a lot of kids?

Even if they survive they don't reproduce much. This actually helps refresh the gene pool.

Think carefully about that one because evolutionists have no answer for this. It is devastating for the assumption of universal common ancestry when the truth sets in so consider carefully the implications.

They probably don't have an answer because it's a non-issue. You are creating a false dilemma because of your faulty assumptions of how population genetics works.

Unless I'm mistaken but I just don't see the point you are trying to make here. Why don't we just stick to the basic questions first. If we can come to an agreement with those, then we can move on to the complicated stuff.

For example, I still haven't heard a good explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils in the geologic column if we assume evolution doesn't work.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Gene duplication has also been implicated in several human neurological disorders.

MECP2 Duplication Syndrome Gene. MECP2 is the main gene known to be associated with MECP2 duplication syndrome. Duplication of MECP2 is usually the underlying mechanism.

Disease characteristics. The MECP2 duplication syndrome is a severe neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by infantile hypotonia, severe mental retardation, poor speech development, progressive spasticity...
​

There are others but Papias is right, gene duplication has been associated with speciation and often have no negative effects. It's actually a fascinating subject.

Yep, mark is right that gene duplication can cause harmful mutations (as was also pointed out by jinx). Thanks for pointing that out with examlpes.

As before, the fact that many mutations are harmful doesn't mean that all of them are harmful. Most are neutral, many are harmful, a few are beneficial. So the fact that there are harmful gene duplications doesn't change the fact that they can supply a route to increased beneficial information. Just like lottery tickets, the fact that most of them don't pay out doesn't mean that there aren't some that do pay out.

With Christ's love-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, not a completely different lineage. But, yes, our ancestors definitely diverged from the chimp's ancestors. We are cousins to chimpanzees, not direct descendants of them. This is what the morphology and genetics evidence tells us.

No it's not telling us anything of the sort and you have dodge the question. The genetic evidence is telling us that the mutation rate would have had to be dangerously high if not exceeding the upper limit.

So? 96% still puts us firmly in the same phylum, class, order, and family as chimps. That how phylogenetic taxonomy works...

'This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects', that's how genetics work.

These genetic findings fit perfectly with what we find in the fossil record.

No they don't and since you brought it up, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? I only ask because the Taung Child and Lucy both had chimpanzee sized brains, your thoughts...

That is to say that we never find fossils of ape ancestors below cat ancestors or cow ancestors below mice ancestors and so on...

Yet we have literally hundreds of fossils for human ancestors and none of our primate cousins in Africa.

To me, this evidence is undeniable. It's one thing if we just looked at the surface similarities/differences and then guessed at how we should classify stuff.

You mean it's unquestionable because it's far from decisive.

I'll concede that to you! It might just be a huge coincidence that everything fits perfectly on a branching tree of life when we just examine the morphological traits! Fine! You win!

It has to be more then coincidence when you are talking about brain related genes requiring a massive overhaul.

But when modern genetics AND the fossil record unequivocally match the predictions we make from taxonomy, I don't know how you can deny it.

Because I've studied both and what your saying is begging the question of proof in ways you are completely unaware of.

I'm not sure about all that... I don't feel like I have to discuss the complicated genetic stuff with you right now. I just woke up!

Take your time and when you get around to it you'll find the math is not that complicated. Just insert 5% instead of 1.33% into the formula provided.

Besides, I can prove my point by just using basic knowledge of taxonomy, paleontology, and genetics without having to dive down into the nitty-gritty stuff.

It's called begging the question but I'm used to hearing fallacious logic, no big deal around here.

Again, you are getting down into complicated genetic stuff and we don't even need to go there.

It's not that complicated.

I don't think you are aware of the many mechanisms available that can remove deleterious mutations from a gene pool.

I'm well aware of the DNA repair mechanisms, are you aware of the deleterious effects when they fail?

You seem to think that negative mutations just keep building up but this just doesn't happen.

Most of them are neutral because they are not subject to selective constraints but we are talking about a giant leap of adaptive evolution, the human brain.

One mechanism is even mentioned by God. "male and female"

I'm aware of mutations being screened by those two processes. So how do you account for the divergence is the repair mechanisms and normative screening of mutations are intact?

In nature, severely mutated individuals often reproduce less and thus keep the gene pool clean of their mutations.

Agreed, that's actually a vital part of my argument. Remember we are talking about divergence due to mutations. That coupled with the fact of there having to have been an elevated mutation rate.

Even today this happens. How many severely genetically handicapped people do you know that have a lot of kids?

Even if they survive they don't reproduce much. This actually helps refresh the gene pool.

Absolutely, it's due to the deleterious effects of mutations on reproductive fitness.

They probably don't have an answer because it's a non-issue. You are creating a false dilemma because of your faulty assumptions of how population genetics works.

I disagree only with your statement that it's a non-issue. On the other points raised I am well aware of these three mutation screening mechanisms and it does nothing but support my proposition that the mutation rate would be too high.

Unless I'm mistaken but I just don't see the point you are trying to make here. Why don't we just stick to the basic questions first. If we can come to an agreement with those, then we can move on to the complicated stuff.

Ok, the basic question is, if homology arguments based on DNA comparisons are evidence for common ancestry then are differences valid arguments for independent lineage? In other words, does you theory have a null hypothesis that allows for the inverse logic that is intuitively obvious?

For example, I still haven't heard a good explanation for the perfect temporal stratification of fossils in the geologic column if we assume evolution doesn't work.

I haven't heard you answer the question you were responding to. We can worry about the old bones and dirt when you have discussed the genetic basis for adaptive evolution since living systems are better sources then fragmentary artifacts.

See what I mean, this argument is fish in a barrel. Evolutionists have no answer for it if they even bother to consider the question.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KhaosTheory]

Ok, the basic question is, if homology arguments based on DNA comparisons are evidence for common ancestry then are differences valid arguments for independent lineage? In other words, does you theory have a null hypothesis that allows for the inverse logic that is intuitively obvious?

Yes, differences would indicate a divergent lineage but not COMPLETELY different lines of descent like it seems you are trying to imply.

For example, monotremes are obviously different than placentals but we know that they are both children of mammal ancestors because they ONLY share traits in common with other mammals and NONE of other families.

We only find fossils of animals that have traits indicative of flowering lines of descent. That is to say we never find a mammal with avian feathers.

We never find a blue-blooded vertebrate and never a red-blooded mollusk with no exceptions on either side. Why should that be?

Evolution always only builds on what the previous generation already developed so you'll never expect to find an organism with completely different traits than it's ancestors.

This is why classification works. The similarities indicate descent and the differences indicate divergence.

Let me see if I understand your point... You are implying that we are overlooking the differences in order to squeeze organisms into a taxonomic tree?

Watch this:
10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[Martyrs44]

Yes, differences would indicate a divergent lineage but not COMPLETELY different lines of descent like it seems you are trying to imply.

For example, monotremes are obviously different than placentals but we know that they are both children of mammal ancestors because they ONLY share traits in common with other mammals and NONE of other families.

We only find fossils of animals that have traits indicative of flowering lines of descent. That is to say we never find a mammal with avian feathers.

We never find a blue-blooded vertebrate and never a red-blooded mollusk with no exceptions on either side. Why should that be?

Evolution always only builds on what the previous generation already developed so you'll never expect to find an organism with completely different traits than it's ancestors.

This is why classification works. The similarities indicate descent and the differences indicate divergence.

Let me see if I understand your point... You are implying that we are overlooking the differences in order to squeeze organisms into a taxonomic tree?

Watch this:
10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

The author of the video clip is wrong. There are indeed a vast number of different living organisms on earth...but let evolutionary biologists attempt to transform even one bacterium into another classifiably different organism...over any amount of time and guess what? He will end up with bacteria.

Lenski started with bacteria and saw many changes concerning E. coli. But after all his efforts he still ended with bacteria. Not one of his results were non-bacteria. And that friends, is the stasis observed (& nothing else) that was established by God's Law "after its kind". There has never been an observed change from one type of organism to another...ever.

Furthermore, the same biologists cannot link the fossils we have genetically. If evolution is true then this should be a rather easy thing. Yet they have been unable to do that either.

I can illustrate this truth on many levels. Ex:

After 50,000 generations of the Drosophila Melangaster the now famous experiment yielded many changes, virtually all of which were deleterious, but not one of the results yielded a non-fly. That's because there is no evolution. It doesn't exist. It never did.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, differences would indicate a divergent lineage but not COMPLETELY different lines of descent like it seems you are trying to imply.

Ok, hang on there. I don't think you realize why I'm a Creationist. It's Romans 5, comparative genomics and the the law of excluded middle. My sole focus is human evolution because that is the only doctrinal issue for the Christian and if Adam was without earthly parents Darwinian evolution is necessarily false. I don't care about chickens with teeth, horses with toes or half life decay rates.

My sole focus is on the a priori assumption of universal common descent as it applies to the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees. Charles Darwin writes:

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)​

That, my friend, is a proposed null hypothesis and such an organ exists. The human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes. I make that statement based on the most current scientific research that has supplied every reason to warrant skepticism and rejection of the insubstantial naturalistic assumptions in TOE.

I don't care what category you want to list humans in because it's assumed that the closest species has a common ancestor regardless of the evidence. Now why don't you gird up thy loins, so to speak, and answer for the questions I have proposed?

Be advised, that failure to do so is to concede the point as irrefutable. Don't feel bad about it though, not one evolutionist I have encountered has been able to even attempt to answer it because all they would be doing is agreeing with me.