Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

[Loudmouth]

It's a classification system, nothing more.

Reference? Please cite a peer reviewed paper that says phylogenies do not evidence evolution for complex eukaryotes.

A lump of citations from the Talk Origins argument on, 'The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree'. Then you quote this indicating to qualify a phylogeny has to display a, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified'. It all sounds well and good except the argument that follows isn't fragmentary ERVs, it's plants and trees.

It is ERVs as found in primates. They form the predicted phylogeny, both for placement in the genome and by sequence divergence. Remember? I already showed you this.

"Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Those phylogenetic signals as presented in the paper are:

1. Species distribution of orthologous ERVs.
2. Divergence of orthologous ERV genes between species.
3. Divergence of the 5' and 3' LTRs within the same ERV.

They even include this figure with the ERV phylogenetic trees, which is evidence that they have evolved from a common ancestor.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

So no more ignoring phylogenies since that is the evidence being presented by the real scientists in the real peer reviewed papers.

Included, later in the argument, is the classification of some very important fossils you never seem to want to talk about even though it's the subject of the thread:

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern (Example 3: Ape-Man)
​

I notice they did not see fit to include the cranial capacity.

What do you want to discuss?

I'm still waiting for the part where you tell me what the phylogeny of cars and the chart of trees has to do with ERVs.

ERVs produce the predicted phylogeny which is evidence that they were inherited from a common ancestor.

Properly pursued and quantified it would be.

Then you admit that you are ignoring the evidence, and have no refutation of it.

Why not, you managed to ignore the OP throughout the thread.

What about the fossils do you wish to discuss?

You have assumed universal common descent,

That is a lie. I have concluded common descent because of the evidence. It isn't assumed.

the inundation of the human genome by high deleterious viral infections in the germline and the relevance of the source material you quote out of context.

Still waiting for a single reference stating that every viral insertion is deleterious. Until you do, you have nothing.

You don't have to,

Yes, you do. Show that every single viral insertion is deleterious.

Germline invasions would be devastating, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

There are over 200,000 viral insertions in the human genome that suggest otherwise.

You mean to sit there and tell me that these deadly viral infections are responsible for producing 8% of the human genome. That defies all logic.

So it is just a coincidence that they have flanking LTR's and viral genes, look identical to viral genomes, and can even produce new retroviruses (e.g. Phoenix)?

And the inevitable ad hominem fallacious rhetoric of course.

So says the person who can't address any of the arguments that I am putting forth.

Because you would need so many of that, which would have to be far out numbered by deleterious effects, all have multiplicative effects of fitness. That's why, then there is Haladen's Dilemma which is probably out of your reach anyway.

It isn't a dilemma any longer. Geneticists discovered that deleterious mutations can be removed from a population using selective sweeps and synergistic epistasis at a rate much higher than selecting against a single mutation, one at a time. In fact, that is exactly what one of your papers is telling you, but you choose to ignore it, as usual.

Again with the we, in case you haven't noticed your audience is shrinking and I'm not impressed with the melodrama.

I guess you lack a sense of irony.

No, actually it's fallacious rhetoric.



I disagree, see how that works.



No you don't, you have a handful of mutations at specific loci. I remain unimpressed.

Denial appears to be the only thing you have left.

 

[AdamSK]

Could someone explain how the subject of this thread has anything to do with a null hypothesis?

 

[AdamSK]

No one?

 

[Loudmouth]

Could someone explain how the subject of this thread has anything to do with a null hypothesis?

mark kennedy is arguing that differences between species refutes the theory of evolution. He actually thinks that a theory which predicts divergence between species is refuted by that very divergence.

 

[mark kennedy]

Reference? Please cite a peer reviewed paper that says phylogenies do not evidence evolution for complex eukaryotes.

I don't think so, you can play you semantical word salad another time.

It is ERVs as found in primates. They form the predicted phylogeny, both for placement in the genome and by sequence divergence. Remember? I already showed you this.

"Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Same paper, same argument and same response, your begging the question of proof. That's simply an assumption that they must be the result of germline invasions punctuated by subsequent anecdotal evidence.

Those phylogenetic signals as presented in the paper are:

1. Species distribution of orthologous ERVs.
2. Divergence of orthologous ERV genes between species.
3. Divergence of the 5' and 3' LTRs within the same ERV.

You've only spammed it a hundred times, I'm familiar with the rationale just unimpressed with the false assumptions.

They even include this figure with the ERV phylogenetic trees, which is evidence that they have evolved from a common ancestor.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Which are 'Phylogenies of seven HERV loci'. Not 200,000. It's anecdotal, presuppositional and completely irreverent to actual adaptive evolution. That's why you rely on it continuously, it's a semantical quagmire and nothing is at stake.

So no more ignoring phylogenies since that is the evidence being presented by the real scientists in the real peer reviewed papers.

NO, one paper and a half hearted rehash of an old talk origins argument, nothing more.

What do you want to discuss?

Try actually reading the OP and the list would suggest an assortment of various other fossils.

ERVs produce the predicted phylogeny which is evidence that they were inherited from a common ancestor.

No they didn't, they offer a handful of anecdotal mutations. The larger issue of whether or not germline mutations can, much less did, happen on a scale that produces 8% of the human genome goes unaddressed.

Then you admit that you are ignoring the evidence, and have no refutation of it.

You don't have an argument, you have a red herring fallacy.

What about the fossils do you wish to discuss?

Try reading the OP for a change.

That is a lie. I have concluded common descent because of the evidence. It isn't assumed.

That's nonsense, feigning some moral indignation is nothing but bad melodrama. You bias is presuppositional which is evidence, obvious and essential to your argument. It's riddle with supposition and sparse anecdotal evidence, a foregone conclusion.

Still waiting for a single reference stating that every viral insertion is deleterious. Until you do, you have nothing.

Can't prove a negative. Science is an inductive approach so you make inferences of the whole from a small subset of the whole. Germline invasions would be devastating, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. They are very rare and I have yet to see a single example of the being identified as infecting a human host. The only viral infections you have to demonstrate this is HIV which invades T cells with deadly deleterious results. When the virus makes it's way to the Lumph nodes the immune system is virtually destroyed. You mean to sit there and tell me that these deadly viral infections are responsible for producing 8% of the human genome. That defies all logic.

Yes, you do. Show that every single viral insertion is deleterious.

You want an exhaustive explanation of an obvious fact. Most of the research done on retroviruses has been over the AIDs epidemic. There is absolutely no evidence that HIV has been anything other then deleterious and very often lethal. More fallacious rhetoric.

There are over 200,000 viral insertions in the human genome that suggest otherwise.

No, you have seven anecdotal mutations and a presuppostion that 8% of the genome is the result of viral infections, that's about it.

So it is just a coincidence that they have flanking LTR's and viral genes, look identical to viral genomes, and can even produce new retroviruses (e.g. Phoenix)?

The Phoenix virus never worked, ERVs have an assortment of premature stop codons, frameshifts, substitutions, and deletions, so that they are incapable of expression, let alone transposition and transmission:

Within the published human genome sequence, there are over 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), but all are defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions. No replication-competent HERVs have been identified to date (26, 31, 33, 35), with only one (K113) with open reading frames for all genes (35) (Journal of Virology, 2005)​

So says the person who can't address any of the arguments that I am putting forth.

You don't have an argument, just some anecdotal evidence riddled with standard fallacious rhetoric.

It isn't a dilemma any longer. Geneticists discovered that deleterious mutations can be removed from a population using selective sweeps and synergistic epistasis at a rate much higher than selecting against a single mutation, one at a time. In fact, that is exactly what one of your papers is telling you, but you choose to ignore it, as usual.

I haven't ignored anything, the fixation of even beneficial alleles is perilous. Of course adaptive evolution does happen and any time they are talking about positive synergistic epistasis or selective sweeps I take it with a grain of salt.

Denial appears to be the only thing you have left.

That's not denial, that's boredom. Fielding the same semantical word salad isn't cleaver or esoteric, it's an exercise in futility. I have taken a new interest in the subject, for Creationists finding out what ERVs actually do is the challenge for coming up with a positive argument. This was interesting:

To review recent research findings on the specific expression of endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVS) in reproductive tissues and their possible physiological roles.ERVS have been implicated in several biological events such as induction of resistance to exogenous retrovirus invasion, involvement in placental trophoblast formation, sperm maturation and differentiation; and stimulation of local immunosuppression to protect the foetus from immunological attack. (East African Medical Journal, 2006)
​

The ERVs do stuff. Still piecing it together but you can find this and that, here and there:

This is the first case of gene conversion involving long open reading frames in HERVs. Together with the placenta-specific expression of the human and baboon ENVV1 and ENVV2 envelope genes, these data provide strong evidence of a beneficial role for the host. (Gene conversion and purifying selection of a placenta-specific ERV-V envelope gene during simian evolution. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2006)​

The creationist response to these highly convoluted arguments is that they were largely the part of the original creation.

ERVs were created to encode co-regulated proteins and to regulate dispersed host genes. Retrotransposition adds to the flexibility of the cellular genome, while intercellular transmission enables ERVs in horizontal gene transfer and homologous repair. Common design and controlled activities may explain the similarities between human and primate ERVs, while deregulation in viral replication and integration is responsible for the pathogenesis of modern retroviruses. Re-endogenization of degenerated exogenous retroviruses is mostly detrimental. (The Natural History of Retroviruses Exogenization vs Endogenization)
​

That is certainly more interesting then a handful of anecdotal mutations. The rehash was boring me to tears.

mark kennedy is arguing that differences between species refutes the theory of evolution. He actually thinks that a theory which predicts divergence between species is refuted by that very divergence.

No I'm not, I'm arguing that universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes are classic Darwinian a priori assumption. Evolution is not a theory it's a phenomenon in nature and finally. I am convinced that debating in the third person is poor melodrama. Just a guy standing in an old, empty theater performing for people who left long ago.

Have a Nice Day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think so, you can play you semantical word salad another time.

Still waiting for you to show me how phylogenies do not evidence evolution.

Same paper, same argument and same response, your begging the question of proof. That's simply an assumption that they must be the result of germline invasions punctuated by subsequent anecdotal evidence.

That's like saying you have to assume the suspect left DNA at the crime scene in order to get a DNA match.

The evidence for past germline invasions is the ERVs.

You've only spammed it a hundred times, I'm familiar with the rationale just unimpressed with the false assumptions.

They aren't assumptions.

Which are 'Phylogenies of seven HERV loci'. Not 200,000.

You asked what phylogenies had to do with ERVs. I just showed you. Are you still denying that phylogenies don't evidence evolution? Here is a real scientific paper citing ERV phylogenies as evidence of common ancestry. Your response? Denial. Sad.

It's anecdotal, presuppositional and completely irreverent to actual adaptive evolution. That's why you rely on it continuously, it's a semantical quagmire and nothing is at stake.

All empty claims without a single scientific paper to back them.

Try actually reading the OP and the list would suggest an assortment of various other fossils.

What about them?

No they didn't, they offer a handful of anecdotal mutations. The larger issue of whether or not germline mutations can, much less did, happen on a scale that produces 8% of the human genome goes unaddressed.

They are addressed by the ability of humans to reproduce and survive with 8% of their genome being made up of ERVs. That is the proof.

Try reading the OP for a change.

Try supporting your assertions for a change.

You bias is presuppositional which is evidence, obvious and essential to your argument. It's riddle with supposition and sparse anecdotal evidence, a foregone conclusion.

Yet more assertions with nothing to back them. Present the evidence that exposes my bias, or retract your claim.

Can't prove a negative.

Then you have no argument. Your entire argument is based on proving a negative. If you can't prove that every ERV is deleterious, then you must admit that it is possible that ERVs can be neutral changes to a genome, or perhaps even beneficial ones.

Most of the research done on retroviruses has been over the AIDs epidemic. There is absolutely no evidence that HIV has been anything other then deleterious and very often lethal. More fallacious rhetoric.

I have 200,000 examples of retroviral insertions that have proven to not be deleterious.

The Phoenix virus never worked,

" This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/

ERVs have an assortment of premature stop codons, frameshifts, substitutions, and deletions, so that they are incapable of expression, let alone transposition and transmission:

Yet another assertion you haven't backed up with a shred of evidence.

Let's say that there is an indel in the envelope protein of a viral genome as it is being replicated in a cell. Will that result in an inability to infect another cell and insert into the genome of another cell? NO!!!!

Why is that? The answer is quite simple. The proteins found on the surface of a viral particle were not made from the copy of the viral RNA found in the viral particle itself. It is entirely possible to have a viral particle with envelope proteins made from a copy of RNA that is not the RNA it carries.

Therefore, a viral particle can have functional envelope protein while carrying an RNA genome with a non-functional env gene due to an indel that occurred while copying the genome.

Within the published human genome sequence, there are over 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), but all are defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions. No replication-competent HERVs have been identified to date (26, 31, 33, 35), with only one (K113) with open reading frames for all genes (35) (Journal of Virology, 2005)

You have never considered that ERVs accumulate mutations AFTER they insert?

I haven't ignored anything, the fixation of even beneficial alleles is perilous.

Reference, please.

Of course adaptive evolution does happen and any time they are talking about positive synergistic epistasis or selective sweeps I take it with a grain of salt.

Like I said, all you have is denial.

Fielding the same semantical word salad isn't cleaver or esoteric, it's an exercise in futility.

Using names and refusing to address the argument is denial.

I have taken a new interest in the subject, for Creationists finding out what ERVs actually do is the challenge for coming up with a positive argument. This was interesting:

To review recent research findings on the specific expression of endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVS) in reproductive tissues and their possible physiological roles.ERVS have been implicated in several biological events such as induction of resistance to exogenous retrovirus invasion, involvement in placental trophoblast formation, sperm maturation and differentiation; and stimulation of local immunosuppression to protect the foetus from immunological attack. (East African Medical Journal, 2006)
​

The ERVs do stuff. Still piecing it together but you can find this and that, here and there:

This is the first case of gene conversion involving long open reading frames in HERVs. Together with the placenta-specific expression of the human and baboon ENVV1 and ENVV2 envelope genes, these data provide strong evidence of a beneficial role for the host. (Gene conversion and purifying selection of a placenta-specific ERV-V envelope gene during simian evolution. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2006)​

The creationist response to these highly convoluted arguments is that they were largely the part of the original creation.

ERVs were created to encode co-regulated proteins and to regulate dispersed host genes. Retrotransposition adds to the flexibility of the cellular genome, while intercellular transmission enables ERVs in horizontal gene transfer and homologous repair. Common design and controlled activities may explain the similarities between human and primate ERVs, while deregulation in viral replication and integration is responsible for the pathogenesis of modern retroviruses. Re-endogenization of degenerated exogenous retroviruses is mostly detrimental. (The Natural History of Retroviruses Exogenization vs Endogenization)
​

That is certainly more interesting then a handful of anecdotal mutations. The rehash was boring me to tears.

We can add "anecdotal" to the list of words you don't understand.

Also, "being part of the original creation" does not explain why they fall into a phylogeny.

No I'm not, I'm arguing that universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes are classic Darwinian a priori assumption.

And yet you can't point to a single assumption.

 

[AdamSK]

mark kennedy is arguing that differences between species refutes the theory of evolution. He actually thinks that a theory which predicts divergence between species is refuted by that very divergence.

Okay, but what does it have to do with using a sample to evaluate a population model? I don't see anything in here that relates to a null hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, but what does it have to do with using a sample to evaluate a population model? I don't see anything in here that relates to a null hypothesis.

From the opening post:

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)​

Mark thinks that the increase in brain size is one such example. However, he hasn't been able to illustrate how the human brain could not have formed through "numerous, successive, slight modifications,". He simply asserts that it couldn't happen, and calls people names if they disagree.

 

[AdamSK]

So he doesn't understand what a null hypothesis is; he's just using the term to mean "falsifying prediction"?

 

[Loudmouth]

So he doesn't understand what a null hypothesis is; he's just using the term to mean "falsifying prediction"?

At least the terms are somewhat related.

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay, but what does it have to do with using a sample to evaluate a population model? I don't see anything in here that relates to a null hypothesis.

Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for natural selection:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
​

Such a study would take on comparative anatomy of chimpanzee and human brains, fossil evidence and the effects of mutations on brain related genes. The basic idea is if things alike, aka homology, is an argument and evidence for common ancestry is the inverse logic intuitively obvious. To most evolutionists there is no inverse logic, only an organization of the evidence around the a priori assumption of common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. If we were talking real science here we would be talking in terms of cause and effect not assuming the cause but quantifying and qualifying it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Still waiting for you to show me how phylogenies do not evidence evolution.

The phologenetic markers are based on anecdotal evidence, given the devastating consequence of viral infections in T Cells from the deadly HIV retrovirus the effects of viral infections on germ cells would obviously be devastating. An inescapable fact that you wisely ignore since could not defend your position if you did. Fallacious rhetoric is your only option.

That's like saying you have to assume the suspect left DNA at the crime scene in order to get a DNA match.

Attacking a strawman isn't going to alleviate the burden of proof you shun.

The evidence for past germline invasions is the ERVs.

They are transposable elements

ERVs were created to encode co-regulated proteins and to regulate dispersed host genes. Retrotransposition adds to the flexibility of the cellular genome, while intercellular transmission enables ERVs in horizontal gene transfer and homologous repair. Common design and controlled activities may explain the similarities between human and primate ERVs, while deregulation in viral replication and integration is responsible for the pathogenesis of modern retroviruses. Re-endogenization of degenerated exogenous retroviruses is mostly detrimental. (The Natural History of Retroviruses Exogenization vs Endogenization)
​

They were not produced by viruses, that much is obvious. ERVs have their source in living systems, but they get out:

Structure of hiv virus​

...With deadly consequences.

They aren't assumptions.

This all boils down to false assumptions and fallacies.

You asked what phylogenies had to do with ERVs. I just showed you. Are you still denying that phylogenies don't evidence evolution? Here is a real scientific paper citing ERV phylogenies as evidence of common ancestry. Your response? Denial. Sad.

No, I just reject the fallacious nature of the overall argument. Phyogentic markers are all very interesting but you have abandoned the rational basis for believing that they are the result of germ line invasions.

They are addressed by the ability of humans to reproduce and survive with 8% of their genome being made up of ERVs. That is the proof.

No, those are facts of the abundance of the ERVs adding up to 8% of the human genome, no proof that they are viral in origin. Your begging the question of proof again.

Try supporting your assertions for a change.

Like the actual facts have any bearing on your arguments, you abandon the actual evidence almost immediately.

Yet more assertions with nothing to back them. Present the evidence that exposes my bias, or retract your claim.

More pedantic one liners, there is nothing to address in a fallacious claim except that it's a false premise, an argument that never happened.

Then you have no argument. Your entire argument is based on proving a negative. If you can't prove that every ERV is deleterious, then you must admit that it is possible that ERVs can be neutral changes to a genome, or perhaps even beneficial ones.

No I don't have to prove anything of the sort, the effects of retroviruses on living systems is sufficient to prove that the premise of your argument is false.

I have 200,000 examples of retroviral insertions that have proven to not be deleterious.

No you don't, you have 7 examples of the same mutation in the same location in two respective genomes. Then you have 200,000 possible insertion points for HIV, now you are transitioning into an equivocation fallacy.

" This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/

It demonstrates how it would work except it still had frameshifts which means it wouldn't be able to replicate itself.

Yet another assertion you haven't backed up with a shred of evidence.

No need, there isn't enough evidence here to refute with a counter-argument.

Let's say that there is an indel in the envelope protein of a viral genome as it is being replicated in a cell. Will that result in an inability to infect another cell and insert into the genome of another cell? NO!!!!

It will if the reading frame is broken which virtually all of the human ERVs do.

Why is that? The answer is quite simple. The proteins found on the surface of a viral particle were not made from the copy of the viral RNA found in the viral particle itself. It is entirely possible to have a viral particle with envelope proteins made from a copy of RNA that is not the RNA it carries.

I never said viruses can't infect cells, we know it happens because of HIV and an assortment of other viral infections. We also know these infections are deleterious and deadly. Neutral and beneficial effects are not only unlikely, they are presumptive at best.

Therefore, a viral particle can have functional envelope protein while carrying an RNA genome with a non-functional env gene due to an indel that occurred while copying the genome.

It would be truncated but still damaged. The phoenix virus would be incapable of replicating itself. Your scenario is intriguing and not all that unreasonable but a stretch at best. I know whenever the Army gave me that flu virus that was supposed to be broken I still got sick. I can kind of understand what your getting at here, they are resilient just not a satisfactory explanation for such a large part of the transposable elements in the human genome.

You have never considered that ERVs accumulate mutations AFTER they insert?

I considered it and rejected it as fallacious.

Reference, please.

Like I said, all you have is denial.

Using names and refusing to address the argument is denial.

Why bother, no I don't and yes I have addressed the argument and it's fallacious false assumptions.

We can add "anecdotal" to the list of words you don't understand.

You mean the long list of words you don't bother to understand.

Also, "being part of the original creation" does not explain why they fall into a phylogeny.

7 coincidental mutations is far from a proof of universal common ancestry when it does nothing to explain the most important adaptive traits and effects on the human brain required.

And yet you can't point to a single assumption.

I have proven at least two and with that your argument has descended into a downward spiral into standard fallacious rhetoric. I noticed you are oblivious to the more recent scientific literature on the subject so your demands for source material is circular as expected.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

From the opening post:

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)​

Mark thinks that the increase in brain size is one such example. However, he hasn't been able to illustrate how the human brain could not have formed through "numerous, successive, slight modifications,". He simply asserts that it couldn't happen, and calls people names if they disagree.

The deleterious effects of mutations on brain related genes:

Click on any chromosome below to see a list of selected traits and disorders associated with that chromosome.

For instance on Chromosome 1 they list: Brain cancer and Buscle eye brain disease and I actually happen to know the ASPM gene is on this Chromosome. Virtually of the chromosomes have disease and disorder associated with mutations effecting the human brain.

The effects of mutations on the human brain are well documented and virtually ubiquitous to all known effected brain related genes. The positive proof that changes in these highly conserved genes can be beneficial, let alone adaptive on an evolutionary scale are nonexistent yet it is universally assumed.

Before we even got to that comparative anatomy and a careful examination of the fossil evidence would be crucial but it's not going to happen. Evolutionists don't need actual evidence to do what they do, all they need to do is field fallacious rhetoric, usually in the form of pedantic one liners and focus attention on the person making the argument, the inevitable ad hominem attack. Frankly, I know exactly how I could rearrange my theology around a gradualism Darwinian philosophy of natural history. I also know exactly how I could qualify the rise of the human brain from that of apes. What proved to be elusive in the extreme is the molecular basis of the human brains descent from an ape like brain almost a third it's size. Include the fact that Neanderthals has a cranial capacity 10% larger then our own and most of the ape like fossilized skulls are only slightly bigger then modern chimpanzees I'd say I am decoding a modern myth.

The crucial point of departure for me was the absence of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record and the high degree of similarity of crucial hominid fossils with the modern chimpanzee.

This point isn't even addressed, it speaks volumes for inane ability of evolutionists is ignore, conflate and depreciate their most esoteric evidential arguments. Instead they pursue flawed logic and obscure anecdotal that does nothing to affirm or even address the real issues. This clearly demonstrates to me that they lack the courage of their convictions. Otherwise they would have embraced the evidence, instead they chose to bury it in fallacious arguments on the stage of the now nearly empty Darwinian theater of the mind. I'm not as fascinated with the actual evidence, what keeps my interest is you:

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. (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)
​

It's the intellectual fallacies that fascinate me, Darwinism being the most current.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
It's the intellectual fallacies that fascinate me, Darwinism being the most current.
-snip-

But you have shown no such thing.

If you could show that common descent (or the ToE) is in error then you would be set for life. Its every scientists dream to upset a well established scientific theory. Money, fame, and a place in history would be assured!

But, as the science is rock solid this hasnt happened and the ToE (and common descent) is one of the best researched and most robust scientific theories we have.

You are not a scientist, you clearly dont understand the science and also post things that are clearly fraudulent which other posters repeatedly point out to you. Is that really the kind of debate you want to have? Do you really want to be the one that posts lies, misrepresentations etc all because of your religious belief? Doesnt that give you reason to re-consider your arguments?

 

[AdamSK]

Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for natural selection:

Okay, so you don't actually know what a null hypothesis is.

Words have established meanings. You can't just take any falsifiable prediction and start using completely unrelated statistical terminology to describe it.

 

[AdamSK]

The effects of mutations on the human brain are well documented and virtually ubiquitous to all known effected brain related genes. The positive proof that changes in these highly conserved genes can be beneficial, let alone adaptive on an evolutionary scale are nonexistent yet it is universally assumed.

Hardly nonexistent; several examples of differences in genes between chimps and apes that illustrate a gradual, positive change. For example, SRGAP2. Other primates have a single gene; we have the original and three variations, a very clear case of duplication and point substitution mutations. Our four SRGAP2 genes result in more rapid neuron growth and a denser cerebral cortex than in any of our ape cousins.

Did you know about SRGAP2? If not, why didn't you look for evidence like this before making your claim? If so, why didn't you mention it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Such a study would take on comparative anatomy of chimpanzee and human brains, fossil evidence and the effects of mutations on brain related genes.

Chimps and humans have different sequences for brain related genes, and both species survive just fine. Therefore, changes to brain related genes are not all deleterious.

The basic idea is if things alike, aka homology, is an argument and evidence for common ancestry

It isn't an argument for common ancestry, as already discussed. A nested hierarchy of both similarity and differences is what evidences evolution.

To most evolutionists there is no inverse logic,

There is the inverse logic. Since a nested hierarch evidences evolution, then numerous and clear examples of violations of that nested hierarchy would falsify evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

The deleterious effects of mutations on brain related genes:

Click on any chromosome below to see a list of selected traits and disorders associated with that chromosome.

Just because one mutation is deleterious does not mean that all mutations are deleterious.

You have even pointed to a brain related gene that has 18 differences between humans and chimps. If mutations are deleterious, how is it that both chimps and humans survive just fine with 18 differences?

For instance on Chromosome 1 they list: Brain cancer and Buscle eye brain disease and I actually happen to know the ASPM gene is on this Chromosome. Virtually of the chromosomes have disease and disorder associated with mutations effecting the human brain.

Do all 40 million differences between the human and chimp genomes cause diseases in either chimps or humans? If not, then you can't claim that all mutations cause disease.

What you are arguing is that all species must have the exact same sequence in their genome or they will go extinct. ALL OF THEM.

Evolutionists don't need actual evidence to do what they do, all they need to do is field fallacious rhetoric, usually in the form of pedantic one liners and focus attention on the person making the argument, the inevitable ad hominem attack. Frankly, I know exactly how I could rearrange my theology around a gradualism Darwinian philosophy of natural history. I also know exactly how I could qualify the rise of the human brain from that of apes. What proved to be elusive in the extreme is the molecular basis of the human brains descent from an ape like brain almost a third it's size. Include the fact that Neanderthals has a cranial capacity 10% larger then our own and most of the ape like fossilized skulls are only slightly bigger then modern chimpanzees I'd say I am decoding a modern myth.

You complain about pedantic one liners and rhetoric, and then launch in to a rant full of pedantic one liners and rhetoric. Color me stunned. Why don't you set an example and not participate in the actions that you condemn others of.

The crucial point of departure for me was the absence of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record and the high degree of similarity of crucial hominid fossils with the modern chimpanzee.

Please prove that there are no chimp ancestor fossils in the ground as we speak. If you are going to claim they don't exist, then prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The phologenetic markers are based on anecdotal evidence,

No, they aren't. They are based on direct observations. If you can't deal with the evidence, then now is the time to admit it.

We will go no further until you start dealing with the evidence.

given the devastating consequence of viral infections in T Cells from the deadly HIV retrovirus the effects of viral infections on germ cells would obviously be devastating.

You still lack a reference demonstrating that all retroviral insertions are deleterious.

Attacking a strawman isn't going to alleviate the burden of proof you shun.

What was it you said about pedantic one liners?

Address the argument or admit that you don't have a refutation.

They are transposable elements

ERVs were created to encode co-regulated proteins and to regulate dispersed host genes. Retrotransposition adds to the flexibility of the cellular genome, while intercellular transmission enables ERVs in horizontal gene transfer and homologous repair. Common design and controlled activities may explain the similarities between human and primate ERVs, while deregulation in viral replication and integration is responsible for the pathogenesis of modern retroviruses. Re-endogenization of degenerated exogenous retroviruses is mostly detrimental. (The Natural History of Retroviruses Exogenization vs Endogenization)
​

They were not produced by viruses, that much is obvious.

Did you even read your reference?

"while intercellular transmission enables ERVs in horizontal gene transfer and homologous repair"

Intercellular transmission and horizontal gene transfer is what the viruses are doing.

Also, common design does not explain the phylogenies. Common design does not produce phylogenies. Only evolution produces phylogenies. Why would a common designer need to create ERVs so that the ERVs shared by the most species also have the largest LTR divergence? Why would orthologous ERVs produce a phylogeny if they were put there by a common designer?

ERVs have their source in living systems, but they get out:

Structure of hiv virus​

...With deadly consequences.

And those who survive the infection can have insertions in germ line cells that they pass on to their offspring.

This all boils down to false assumptions and fallacies.

This boils down to you avoiding the evidence, such as phylogenies.

No, I just reject the fallacious nature of the overall argument. Phyogentic markers are all very interesting but you have abandoned the rational basis for believing that they are the result of germ line invasions.

The ERVs are the evidence that germline invasions occurred in the past.

No, those are facts of the abundance of the ERVs adding up to 8% of the human genome, no proof that they are viral in origin.

The proof is that they are viral genomes. The proof is that we can directly observe viruses inserting into genomes and producing the very ERVs we see in the human genome. We can even reconstruct ERVs and observe them producing new viral particles and infection new cells where they produce new ERVs.'

How is that not proof?

Like the actual facts have any bearing on your arguments, you abandon the actual evidence almost immediately.

Remember what you said about pedantic one liners?

More pedantic one liners, there is nothing to address in a fallacious claim except that it's a false premise, an argument that never happened.

Pot, meet kettle.

No I don't have to prove anything of the sort, the effects of retroviruses on living systems is sufficient to prove that the premise of your argument is false.

No, it isn't sufficient proof, as already explained.

No you don't, you have 7 examples of the same mutation in the same location in two respective genomes. Then you have 200,000 possible insertion points for HIV, now you are transitioning into an equivocation fallacy.

We have over 200,000 examples of ERVs found at the same location in the chimp and human genome.

It demonstrates how it would work except it still had frameshifts which means it wouldn't be able to replicate itself.

Why would it need to replicate itself in order to be passed on as part of the genome? Once it inserts it is capable of being passed on.

No need, there isn't enough evidence here to refute with a counter-argument.

Another pedantic one liner.

It will if the reading frame is broken which virtually all of the human ERVs do.

They accumulate mutations after inserting.

I never said viruses can't infect cells, we know it happens because of HIV and an assortment of other viral infections. We also know these infections are deleterious and deadly.

We don't that all of them are deleterious, hence the failure of your argument.

The phoenix virus would be incapable of replicating itself.

"Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1665638/

Your scenario is intriguing and not all that unreasonable but a stretch at best. I know whenever the Army gave me that flu virus that was supposed to be broken I still got sick.

And if you understood immunology, you would know why. You had an immune reaction to the viral proteins which is what made you feel unwell.

I can kind of understand what your getting at here, they are resilient just not a satisfactory explanation for such a large part of the transposable elements in the human genome.

Why, because you say so? Where is a scientific reference backing your claims?

I considered it and rejected it as fallacious.

Why is it fallacious?

Why bother, no I don't and yes I have addressed the argument and it's fallacious false assumptions.

And I have shown how your arguments are false.

7 coincidental mutations is far from a proof of universal common ancestry when it does nothing to explain the most important adaptive traits and effects on the human brain required.

And now you are avoiding the evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just because one mutation is deleterious does not mean that all mutations are deleterious.

We are talking about just one, we are talking about all known cases of mutations in brain related genes. Not just deleterious but deadly.

You have even pointed to a brain related gene that has 18 differences between humans and chimps. If mutations are deleterious, how is it that both chimps and humans survive just fine with 18 differences?

Because those are not mutations, those are differences in the comparison of the sequence. As usual, basic concepts like what comparative genomics actual is has eluded you. They are called substitutions because it is assumed that, that is how they got there.

Do all 40 million differences between the human and chimp genomes cause diseases in either chimps or humans? If not, then you can't claim that all mutations cause disease.

Because a difference in the two genomes and a genetic mutation are two very different things. You are confusing a copy error in the G2 phase of transcription with direct comparisons of genomic sequences. What blows me away is how basic this is and how often you make these kind of fundamental errors.

What you are arguing is that all species must have the exact same sequence in their genome or they will go extinct. ALL OF THEM.

As many times as you beat, insult and set the straw man on fire it will not be one of my arguments. You can find examples of mutations which result in beneficial effects from gene duplication, exon shuffling, variant alleles even gene expression or dominant and recessive change, that can be vehicles for an evolving genome. Not brain related genes, they are far too highly conserved. All of them? I'd settle for you making an honest effort to understand anything about any of this.

You complain about pedantic one liners and rhetoric, and then launch in to a rant full of pedantic one liners and rhetoric. Color me stunned. Why don't you set an example and not participate in the actions that you condemn others of.

It's appropriate when the conversation has finally descended into shallow, biting personal remarks. Trust me I'm not sold out to just exchanging insults. If you want to elevate the conversation then elevate your thinking. Start by trying to get the basic concept of comparative genomics down before you go on for pages correcting me and calling me a liar over something you never bothered to learn.

Please prove that there are no chimp ancestor fossils in the ground as we speak.

You can't prove a negative, but since evolutionists have no accountability absurd hyperbole is the order of the day. You just want me to chase this silly fallacious logic in circles. I never said there were none in the ground I said there were none in the fossil record, with the exception of three maybe four teeth that much is irrefutably true. But there are chimpanzee skulls in the fossil record, they just get passed off as our ancestor to give the false impression of being transitional.

Lucy AL 288-1, found in Hadar, Ethiopia had a cranial capacity of 410cc and dated 3.2mya is small even for a modern chimpanzee. Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1. The Taung Child, Taung 1, regarded simply as a chimpanzee for years had a cranial capacity of between 382-404 cc. Again, small even for a modern chimpanzee that ranges from 320cc to 480cc or right around 400cc on average. Modern human average right around 1400cc depending on who's statistical average you are looking at, Neanderthals had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.

From early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens, the human brain has continued to grow. The volume of the human brain has increased as humans have evolved (see Homininae), starting from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis up to 1600 cm3 in Homo neanderthalensis, which was the hominid with the biggest brain size. Brain Size Wikipedia
​

It is still nearly impossible to consider that Taung might just be a chimpanzee ancestor even though it's become increasingly obvious that human like features are sparse:

Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed, the researchers suggest physical evidence does not incontrovertibly link features of the Taung skull, or its endocast, to early prefrontal lobe expansion, a brain region implicated in many human behaviors. (Taung Skull not Humn-like 26 August 2014)
​

It's just not like the human brain:

As Taung provides the only purported pre-Homo fossil evidence for the suggested adaptive mechanism, we test the hypothesis that it displays these features. (PNAS 2014)
​

This has been going on for quite sometime:

Over the next decade, Dr. Holloway elaborated on these themes. But in 1980, Dr. Falk, then at the University of Puerto Rico, returned from her own trip to Johannesburg and announced a radically different conclusion: the Taung child’s brain and those of a half-dozen other South African australopithecines were like those of apes, not later humans. In Study of Brain Evolution, Zeal and Bitter Debate
​

If you are going to claim they don't exist, then prove it.

Oh they exist, they are just being passed off as human ancestors. The evidence indicates human brain features before the Homo genus do not exist. The only reason some of them are being passed off as human ancestors is because the Cerebral Rubicon was removed as a standard by Louis Leaky and company:

A "cerebral rubicon" in paleontology is the minimum cranial capacity required for a specimen to be classified as a certain paleospecies or genus. The term is mostly used in reference to human evolution. The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith set the limit at 750 cc for the genus Homo. The minimum cranial capacity for the species Homo sapiens is generally set at 900cc. One of the reasons for the proposal to exclude Homo habilis from the genus Homo, and renaming it as "Australopithecus habilis", is the small capacity of their cranium (363cc -600 cc). Cerebral rubicon
​

They are in the ground alright and they do exist, they are just getting passed off as hominid. As usual, you got the whole thing backwards, I just don't know if your doing this on purpose or you really have no clue. But you obviously don't understand what comparative genomics are and certainly got my position on hominid evolution upside down and backwards.

Have a nice day
Mark