I'm not suggesting 'knockout' genes or anything of the sort. What I am stating clearly is that there are dozens of mutations effecting the human brain documented in the scientific literature and their all bad.
I am completely unfamiliar with the term ‘knockout genes’. Sorry.
And I’m not disputing the fact that there are bad brain mutations, don’t get me wrong. But the fact remains that experimenting to find ‘beneficial’ ones would be potentially unethical.
I would also like to point out that if any change to the human brain were to be reversed, as it were (say, in the common ancestor it was WXYZ and in humans it is WWXYZ, and for the sake of argument the extra W was beneficial by example fiat), would not a mutation that got rid of the extra W be detrimental, even if it is just an ‘undoing’ of a previous mutation? I mean, it will make the person less fit that human normal, which would be a genetic disease, but the brain would still work, no? Well, in some of them.
If the individule died of some kind of a brain related genetic mutation they are already going to have all they need in Genbank. Type, 'brain related genetic mutations' into your google search engine and you will get a list like this:
I’m sorry. My brain got ahead of my fingers, and when i reread what I typed, I knew what I wanted to say and I read it there even tho it wasn’t. So... let me try again.
Yes, there are deaths due to mutations that are detrimental to the brain. No argument there. But, why would positive mutations be documented? I mean, if a person is smarter than normal, or more resistant to alzheimer’s than normal but dies before he’d be of age to contract it (and not all people do so it wouldn’t necessarily be noticed), or so on, how or why would it be noticed and/or documented? It is not routine to sequence someone’s DNA whenever anybody anywhere dies, unless I’m missing out on something big. And since brains are delicate and messing around with them is discouraged, poking inside every extraordinarily smart person’s brains would be a very bad idea, and wouldn’t even get anywhere near all the potential positive mutations.
Also, what would be considered a beneficial mutation? We would need a list of criteria to fit to that as well. I could see a great many things fitting it. A brain that burns even 1% fewer calories. A brain that computes certain things extra well. A brain that processes faster. A brain with a photographic memory (I know those exist, but I don’t know if it is genetic). And so on. The problems of deciding what would be beneficial, and how to screen for them, and so on are monumental.
I'm just saying look at what we do know about mutations affecting the human brain.
We know of many that are negative. This is true. We also know of many other negative mutations on most other organs, and ones not even linked to organs (like Down’s Syndrome).
With science it's either directly observed or demonstrated or it does not count, except with regards to human evolution.
But then we would be observing brains of common ancestors, which didn’t fossilize and are rather hard to come by, so we go by other evidence such as fossils and morphology. A lack of studies, criteria, methodology for determining positive mutations in CURRENT human brains is in no way evidence AGAINST or even contraindicative or what I already listed.
This is not an unreasonable objection to the unquestioned assumption that we descended from modified apes
Actually, it is. “We have no evidence of current beneficial mutations to our brains” does not translate to “all the fossils, morphology, etc for the evolution of man is wrong by default.”
Darwin even said that if there was an organ that could not be accounted for by gradually accumulated, slight and successive steps his theory would fall apart.
Yes, he did. And as a matter of fact, I recently watched something on it was either the discovery channel or the history channel about human evolution, and how there is (in other primates) a ridge that divides the optical part of the brain from the rest of it, that is gone in humans, and in the fossils it can be observed by doing casts on the inside of the brain that it moved back until it disappeared. I’m sorry I don’t remember any names, and that it is really vague information to google, but... if you do find it I hope you enjoy it. And if you can’t, well, I’m sorry my memory isn’t better to give you a name of SOMETHING, either the show, or an expert involved, or the name of that brain ridge. Maybe Sphinx will come up with something
I'm not even demanding proof,
Ah, but you are, as you stated
When you can't produce such a mutation you will admit (by omission) that this is impossible via mutations.
Which comes across as ‘show an example (proof) or it is false’.
I'm putting both the negative evidence for human/chimp common ancestry
But that’s all it is, negative evidence. Also, are there even any STUDIES on beneficial brain mutations? Mass recordings of individuals’ brainpower (which would be hard to quantify much less record everything from that person’s life and set up some sort of nature v nurture standard), complete genome analysis for all involved, criteria for what beneficial mutations are/do, not to mention the timescale and ethics involved, because you’d have to start when they are newborn children or perhaps even unborn. It would be a huge undertaking. Now, if such a study had been DONE and produced no results on positive mutations, then that would be a rather big deal. However, in this case, I would put forth that the absence of a well defined study is NOT equivalent to absence of possibility. Absence of evidence, sure. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and with no studies to provide either evidence of absence, or just plain evidence, I would submit that the lack of papers on such things is not in any way negative evidence.
On the other hand, it would be quite easy to find NEGATIVE mutations as there is already a defined range of ‘normal’ brain function, and problems that bring a person below that would be far more noticeable and quantifiable than figuring out the difference between a person who is just plain smart and a person with a supergene for intelligence. And in order to find out what was wrong, genome sequencing on the sick would be much more routine than those of the healthy, no?
and standing ready to give a defense for the New Testament witness.
Now, I may be misunderstanding you here, and I apologize if I am, but witnessing to the New Testament really doesn’t involve science, much less creationism v evolution.
Metherion