The Myth of Stone Age Ape Men

Can the fossils and DNA prove or disprove common ancestry

  • No (Alternative Proofs)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither (Explain at will)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh but I have and often do. My skepticism is based on actual evidence and what I am confronted with is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I'm not incredulous, I know the evidence and it's not telling us that we evolved from apes, it's demonstrating the differences, especially with regards to the human brain.

It is a myth of epic proportions.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

Would you be willing to present this evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Oh but I have and often do. My skepticism is based on actual evidence and what I am confronted with is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I'm not incredulous, I know the evidence and it's not telling us that we evolved from apes, it's demonstrating the differences, especially with regards to the human brain.

It is a myth of epic proportions.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

There's so much DNA in common we have with the other apes that this in itself is evidence of common ancestry. This includes genetic relics such as the broken vitamin c gene we share with other primates and the thousands of shared retroviral inserts that are basically junk but are clearly shared. These discoveries make the case for common descent among the apes and other mammals proven as strong as the DNA evidence courts use to determine paternity.

And it is still possible for a mutation to, at times, be beneficial.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There's so much DNA in common we have with the other apes that this in itself is evidence of common ancestry. This includes genetic relics such as the broken vitamin c gene we share with other primates and the thousands of shared retroviral inserts that are basically junk but are clearly shared. These discoveries make the case for common descent among the apes and other mammals proven as strong as the DNA evidence courts use to determine paternity.

And it is still possible for a mutation to, at times, be beneficial.

What you are describing is anecdotal, familiar to anyone marginally well read on the subject and hardly conclusive. Equivocating the GULO gene with using DNA to identify an individual is gross hyperbole. The obvious problem is that if things in common, like mutations at mutational hot spots, has an inverse logic Darwinians refuse to admit. If things in common are proof of common ancestry then is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? The ERVs are a prime example of this kind of homology argument gone wrong. When Talk Origins made it's probability argument on identical sequences involving mutations ERVs were thought to be 1% of the human genome, they are now known to be 8% and what even more important:

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Gen. Bio. 2006)​

These are ERVs that exist in Chimpanzee genomes but are completely absent in Human genomes.

Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome...PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species. (Nature 2005)
The inverse logic is intuitively obvious, if DNA is such a compelling evidentcial argument then why is it that this causes to confusion for Darwinians:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change (FDR-adjusted P , 0.0005), with an estimated 18 substi- tutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago.(An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature)
For 300 million years only 2 substitutions allowed, then suddenly about 2 mya 18 suddenly happen. This isn't an isolated incident all protein coding genes on average have one amino acid substitution per lineage per gene, only 29% are actually identical. The smoking gun for me are the indels, if they are no problem then why do evolutionists avoid the subject of indels and mutation rates like the plague?

Genetics is the single strongest challenge to the myth of the stone age ape man. Just chanting natural selection doesn't work when you start looking at mulitplicative effects on fitness and synergistic epistasis. Brain related genes do not respond well to mutations and the only other explanation would be a molecular mechanism that can rewrite these highly conserved genes and none is known to exist.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Would you like to present evidence for anything?

This is on you because you made the statement. I'd be interested to hear what you've uncovered in your research and why it undermines the evolution of the human brain.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What you are describing is anecdotal, familiar to anyone marginally well read on the subject and hardly conclusive.

Anecdotal? Anecdotal? We are talking about known DNA that has been analyzed. It's not a matter of merely sharing an anecdote between us. Your judgement that it is "hardly conclusive" is, however, no surprise . . . to you, nothing can be conclusive on this subject.


With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Gen. Bio. 2006)
These are ERVs that exist in Chimpanzee genomes but are completely absent in Human genomes.

There are tens of thousands of ERV's in the human genome. Creationists typically fail to realize just how many there are. Since the time the lineage leading to humans separated from the lineage leading to chimpanzees, a few hundred have come into both lineages and are therefore do not match up between them.

Finding some ERV's that do not match is NOT a problem for the evidence ERV's bring about common ancestry!



Brain related genes do not respond well to mutations and the only other explanation would be a molecular mechanism that can rewrite these highly conserved genes and none is known to exist.
Have a nice day :)
Mark

Now you've just gone back to saying you won't believe it. We already all know that to be the case for you.

For those truly interested in studying the science behind ERV evidence for common ancestry of our species with other species, here is a link they can check out:

http://evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is on you because you made the statement. I'd be interested to hear what you've uncovered in your research and why it undermines the evolution of the human brain.

Recently I was introduced to the SRGAP2 gene in addition to the other comparative studies I've always pursued. The problems revolve around the size and complexity of the human brain as compared to Chimpanzees. The HAR1f gene speaks to size while the SRGAP2 gene is involved in the density of neurons, our neurons are almost twice as dense. There is a rather extensive list of reasons why this is a problem for common descent. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature which is more often the case then stasis, aka equilibrium, where none of the traits or DNA changes much at all. This isn't about evolution, this is about comparative anatomy and genomics as it pertains to natural history.

I'm happy to share in an open discussion and civil discourse as I learn new things. What I won't do is chase some pedantic challenge for evidence in circles.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Anecdotal? Anecdotal? We are talking about known DNA that has been analyzed. It's not a matter of merely sharing an anecdote between us. Your judgement that it is "hardly conclusive" is, however, no surprise . . . to you, nothing can be conclusive on this subject.

On the contrary, I was nearly convinced on a number of occasions. The ERVs are simply the worst comparative evidence I have ever seen, there is no close second. If you want to compare something psuedo genes like GULO is a good one but even better are protein coding and regulatory genes. This is deep water, in order understand the enormous amount of evidence to sift through you have to take some time and carefully compare things before announcing the conclusion. Invariably, evolutionists get it backwards.

There are tens of thousands of ERV's in the human genome. Creationists typically fail to realize just how many there are. Since the time the lineage leading to humans separated from the lineage leading to chimpanzees, a few hundred have come into both lineages and are therefore do not match up between them.

They are nonconserved and riddled with mutations, 7% of the indels overall are in the ERVs so no they are not identical and coincidental mutations in the same location are inevitable when you are talking about 8% of the human genome overall.

Finding some ERV's that do not match is NOT a problem for the evidence ERV's bring about common ancestry!

Finding things in common doesn't create a problem either, so how the inverse logic works?

Now you've just gone back to saying you won't believe it. We already all know that to be the case for you.

Wow, you went right to the biting personal remarks, that was quick. You don't make any progress resorting to fallacious rhetoric, I don't waste much time on it unless I'm just bored.

For those truly interested in studying the science behind ERV evidence for common ancestry of our species with other species, here is a link they can check out:

Thanks but I have studied it and it's a red herring. It goes no where and proves nothing one way or the other. Real comparisons involve things that actually do things like protein coding genes, regulatory genes and actually vital organs like the brain. Fossil evidence is also critical in this kind of study but I've met very few evolutionists who have the patience for actual study. It's always a rush to the inevitable ad hominem.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Recently I was introduced to the SRGAP2 gene in addition to the other comparative studies I've always pursued. The problems revolve around the size and complexity of the human brain as compared to Chimpanzees. The HAR1f gene speaks to size while the SRGAP2 gene is involved in the density of neurons, our neurons are almost twice as dense. There is a rather extensive list of reasons why this is a problem for common descent. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature which is more often the case then stasis, aka equilibrium, where none of the traits or DNA changes much at all. This isn't about evolution, this is about comparative anatomy and genomics as it pertains to natural history.

How is this a problem for common descent? Are you saying there's another ape that has the same modifications we have but is thought to be evolutionarily further from us than chimpanzees?

I'm happy to share in an open discussion and civil discourse as I learn new things. What I won't do is chase some pedantic challenge for evidence in circles.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

If you don't want to present evidence, that's fine. But evidence is pretty important to science, and you won't change scientific thinking without it.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
How is this a problem for common descent? Are you saying there's another ape that has the same modifications we have but is thought to be evolutionarily further from us than chimpanzees?

I'm not surprised that you don't see this, to be honest I would be surprised if you did. That kind of a conserved gene, or actually the numerous genes going through those kind of changes in such a brief period of time has no known way of happening. Now I'm sure there is conceivably some rational explanation and I understand completely if someones world view makes this all seem rather trite. But the effects on fitness from the multiplicity of effects would be devastating and there is nothing in genetics suggesting otherwise.

If you don't want to present evidence, that's fine. But evidence is pretty important to science, and you won't change scientific thinking without it.

Change science? Why on earth would I want to do that? My problem with this is Darwinism having infected science with ill conceived and fallacious rhetoric. I have and do share what I have learned from the many comparative studies I explore only to be asked pedantic questions in circles, this one is by far the most common tactic. Demand proof and then whatever the discussion ask the question again in circles. That's not an honest assessment of the fact science has produced in abundance, it's a dodge.

The first time I encountered this kind of evidential apologetics was in a small Bible college. The teacher did something that left a lasting impression, he gave the strongest argument he could for this Darwinian philosophy of natural history. I still do that and what I have found is that evolutionists are incapable of accepting the inverse logic of their beliefs. If things the same are evidence for, then differences are an argument against. Otherwise they lack the convictions of their beliefs.

Think what you like but with this kind of circular logic it's a three strike rule for me these days. The third time you ask the same question in a row without addressing or acknowledging that evidence is actually presented it means your trolling.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not surprised that you don't see this, to be honest I would be surprised if you did. That kind of a conserved gene, or actually the numerous genes going through those kind of changes in such a brief period of time has no known way of happening. Now I'm sure there is conceivably some rational explanation and I understand completely if someones world view makes this all seem rather trite. But the effects on fitness from the multiplicity of effects would be devastating and there is nothing in genetics suggesting otherwise.

No known way of happening? But this is how errors in transcription alter genes, in general. This is the basis of genetics. Are you arguing that genetics is fatally flawed?

Change science? Why on earth would I want to do that? My problem with this is Darwinism having infected science with ill conceived and fallacious rhetoric. I have and do share what I have learned from the many comparative studies I explore only to be asked pedantic questions in circles, this one is by far the most common tactic. Demand proof and then whatever the discussion ask the question again in circles. That's not an honest assessment of the fact science has produced in abundance, it's a dodge.

The first time I encountered this kind of evidential apologetics was in a small Bible college. The teacher did something that left a lasting impression, he gave the strongest argument he could for this Darwinian philosophy of natural history. I still do that and what I have found is that evolutionists are incapable of accepting the inverse logic of their beliefs. If things the same are evidence for, then differences are an argument against. Otherwise they lack the convictions of their beliefs.

Think what you like but with this kind of circular logic it's a three strike rule for me these days. The third time you ask the same question in a row without addressing or acknowledging that evidence is actually presented it means your trolling.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

Acknowledging the evidence? It sounds like you're saying that evidence is not the issue: genetics is.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
On the contrary, I was nearly convinced on a number of occasions. The ERVs are simply the worst comparative evidence I have ever seen, there is no close second.. . .

Hmmm. I'm beginning to lose confidence in your ability to evaluate evidence.

If you want to compare something psuedo genes like GULO is a good one but even better are protein coding and regulatory genes.

Well, duh!

They are nonconserved and riddled with mutations, 7% of the indels overall are in the ERVs so no they are not identical and coincidental mutations in the same location are inevitable when you are talking about 8% of the human genome overall.

As an aside, does this mean you are beginning to accept the concept of junk DNA in the genomes of humans and other animals? Who would have thought!

But hey, the strength of the evidence is not that they have or have not managed to remain identical over the eons after having been inserted; you pointed out, they have degraded somewhat over the eons and that makes absolute atom for atom identity to be often missing. Rather the strength is in the fact that they are found in identical positions relative to the chromosones and each other that is the evidence of common origin.

As an aside, does this mean you are willing to agree the earth is very, very old, far older than the 6000 years some hold on to?

I've read that one of the ERV's was coopted by evolution to become a key gene in making placental nourishment work within the womb. Those ERV's go way, way back in time!


quote]Thanks but I have studied it and it's a red herring. It goes no where and proves nothing one way or the other. Real comparisons involve things that actually do things like protein coding genes, regulatory genes and actually vital organs like the brain. Fossil evidence is also critical in this kind of study but I've met very few evolutionists who have the patience for actual study.
Have a nice day :)
Mark[/QUOTE]

Scientists take all the evidence, not according to your filters. The matching of the positions of the ERV's is definitive evidence that backs up the definitive evidence of the vitamin c genetics and the definitive fossil evidence and the definitive protein evidence.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hmmm. I'm beginning to lose confidence in your ability to evaluate evidence.

Given the fact that you haven't offered any that's funny.

Well, duh!

Typical

As an aside, does this mean you are beginning to accept the concept of junk DNA in the genomes of humans and other animals? Who would have thought!

I'm not convinced ERVs are junk, just haven't pursued the possibility of them actually having some function. Alu elements also seem to be subject to recruitment but like I say, really havent had enough time. One thing is for sure, there is no way ERVs are fossilized viruses, the very notion is absurd.

But hey, the strength of the evidence is not that they have or have not managed to remain identical over the eons after having been inserted; you pointed out, they have degraded somewhat over the eons and that makes absolute atom for atom identity to be often missing. Rather the strength is in the fact that they are found in identical positions relative to the chromosones and each other that is the evidence of common origin.

So conversely highly conserved genes like HAR1f and SNGAP2 are evidence of independent lineage then right?

As an aside, does this mean you are willing to agree the earth is very, very old, far older than the 6000 years some hold on to?

The subject of the age of the earth or the cosmos is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation as it relates to the Genesis account of creation. All it says about the creation of the heavens and the earth was, 'in the beginning', then sometime later maybe minutes, maybe billions of years, creation week starts. But to answer your question no, I don't think we can agree on that unless you acknowledge my actual reasons.

I've read that one of the ERV's was coopted by evolution to become a key gene in making placental nourishment work within the womb. Those ERV's go way, way back in time!

No, I've seen things like that to and it indicates ERVs are useful somehow. I think the biggest problem is that when they don't know why they are really there it takes a while to consider what they do. I'm kind of glad you brought this up, did a little google search and apparently creationists are into this. I really didn't think they bothered with ERVs:

Stanford University researchers determined that endogenous retroviral (ERV) DNA sequences play a key role in the early stages of embryonic development. (Novel PRD-Like Homeodomain Transcription Factors and Retrotransposon Elements in Early Human Development,” Nature Communications 6 September 2015)
Interesting that they are coming up with some of the same ideas from a totally different approach. Evolutionists are always so helpful without meaning to be.

Scientists take all the evidence, not according to your filters. The matching of the positions of the ERV's is definitive evidence that backs up the definitive evidence of the vitamin c genetics and the definitive fossil evidence and the definitive protein evidence.

First of all I wish you would either approach the subject matter more seriously or stop pretending to be a defender of science. You are not doing the work but pretend to be on top of the scientific processes and evidence, you obviously are not. Now as far as the GULO gene I have researched that and apparently it had a function but was disabled by a mutation. There was nothing all that compelling about it and when confronted by the specifics evolutionists will drop the subject like a hot potato.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0