Hi Mark,
I was just using some of that fancy "logic" back at him.
I had asked you earlier in this thread about this - maybe you missed it (or maybe I missed your reply):
Hi Mark - hoping you can address this:
Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.
That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.
I have come across these sorts of debates for literally decades. And without fail, regardless of the amount of apparent scientific reasons the creationists present, it ultimately comes down to their simple refusal to accept it - they just don't believe it. But that is not an argument.
I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what,
exactly, you think would have had to happen is the "naturalistic view" were accurate.
For example - there is a mutant allele for the myostatin gene that produces, naturally, giant muscles:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jp7ZiewdHdY/TdogQbnTONI/AAAAAAAAABw/lOiFnKoV3qs/s1600/belgianblue.jpg
While I am not claiming this to be the case, why do you pre-reject something like this (I am assuming you would) in the case of human brain expansion?
That tremendous skeletal muscle expansion is the result of a single mutation. There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think).