Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[Sanoy]

Why should non-biologists ignore the certainty we have about common descent? Sure, it's an inference, but so are facts in general. It's an inference by biologists that influenza virus causes a respiratory disease, but's it's also a fact, and one that people in general can rely on.

It's just a matter of how we communicate. If I was an a non creationist, or a TE it would be fine to call it a fact between each other because we are both going to place it as bed rock in our conversation. But if you were a creationist I would have to call it an inference and assert (I don't mean that in a negative way) that it has a high likelyhood or is the best explanation. It's going to confound communication if an inference is considered a fact within a circle where not everyone agrees that it is a fact. On here we have a wide circle and communication is already horrible.

 

[sfs]

As for proving that any mutation is beneficial, do you have any idea how hard it is to "prove" that any mutation is beneficial in a organism like humans?

As an example, consider the Val66Met mutation in the gene BDNF. There have been over a thousand scientific studies of this single mutation. The mutant variety has been associated with a variety of traits (sometimes -- it seems to depend on the population being studied), including lower intelligence and lower risk for bipolar disease and other psychiatric diseases. There is moderately strong evidence that there has been selective pressure in some populations for the ancestral variant, which means the mutant version must first have reached high frequency in those populations. What exactly has been going on is simply not clear.

 

[stevevw]

And there are a number of possibilities. Some well supported. The most well known response to this question is that life developed shells for the first time. Soft bodied organisms of 600 million years in age, often went un-fossilized. We have rare laagerstaaten in which soft bodied organisms have fossilized, but these are rare and most life would not have become fossilized as they were soft and decay and degrade easily. Whereas shelled organisms...well, a shell is hard and dense and can last a very long time. So, when life evolved shells, all of a sudden we have the appearance of a vast plethora of organisms. Well, not just shells, but other hard parts too, like teeth, spines etc. And essentially what we have is an evolutionary arms race, where predators force natural selection to push prey toward developing shelled and horned defenses. Shelled and horned defenses push predators to develop weapons such as the hardened mouth and shrimp like claws of anomalocaris.

For me this does not make sense. For nearly 3 billion years we have microorganisms who are way more sucessful at surviving than multicelled life. Then multicelled life which is less viable evolves shells to defend themselves from other soft bodied creatures that dont really pose a problem. The idea that new forms are always evolved through preditation and natural selection doesn't stand up.

 

[sfs]

For me this does not make sense. For nearly 3 billion years we have microorganisms who are way more sucessful at surviving than multicelled life. Then multicelled life which is less viable

Why is multicellular life less viable? Looking out the window, I see lots of highly successful multicellular life. What's true is that complex multicellular life requires high levels of oxygen, which were absent for most of Earth's history.

 

[sfs]

It's just a matter of how we communicate. If I was an a non creationist, or a TE it would be fine to call it a fact between each other because we are both going to place it as bed rock in our conversation. But if you were a creationist I would have to call it an inference and assert (I don't mean that in a negative way) that it has a high likelyhood or is the best explanation. It's going to confound communication if an inference is considered a fact within a circle where not everyone agrees that it is a fact. On here we have a wide circle and communication is already horrible.

I agree that simply calling it a fact and leaving it at that is completely useless, and even introducing the word "fact" is probably not helpful. But note the context: a creationist claiming that we shouldn't call evolution a fact. That's the context in which I replied. (Also note that it is only common descent that I'm speaking of, as I tried to make clear in my original statement.)

 

[Job 33:6]

For me this does not make sense. For nearly 3 billion years we have microorganisms who are way more sucessful at surviving than multicelled life. Then multicelled life which is less viable evolves shells to defend themselves from other soft bodied creatures that dont really pose a problem. The idea that new forms are always evolved through preditation and natural selection doesn't stand up.

You're comparing archean or proterozoic eukaryotes to Cambrian soft bodied organisms as if they were all the same thing or should evolve at the same rates.

And I agree with the above post on the subjectiveness of what is more or less viable. I don't think that mankind is less viable than bacteria.

There really isn't a clear mechanical problem stated in your response.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why is multicellular life less viable? Looking out the window, I see lots of highly successful multicellular life. What's true is that complex multicellular life requires high levels of oxygen, which were absent for most of Earth's history.

Speaking of oxygen, there has been recent research on red beds of the Cambrian. Not just the billion years old ones or wherever they fell in time.

 

[Job 33:6]

O.K.



You've been misled about that. For example, Hall observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a culture of bacteria by natural selection and random mutation. Speciation has been directly observed. Would you like to learn more about it?



So what step between say, reptiles and mammals do you suppose could not have come about by gradual change? Let's see what you have to show us.



I'm thinking it's that you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. You should know, BTW, that the evolutionary theory accepted today is modified by the findings of genetics. Interestingly, Mendel's discovery of genes cleared up a real problem for Darwinian evolution. Would you like to learn about that?

But first, just so we know you know, how about telling us Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory? Which of them do you think are not observed?



While Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, genetics has changed the theory significantly. If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, you should at least know what it is.



As you might be starting to suspect, common descent isn't part of evolutionary theory. It's a consequence of evolution. But remember, modern evolutionary theory is not classic Darwinian theory.



That's the hard part for creationists. If you want to talk about "modern evolutionary theory", you have to know what it is.

Darwin's main points are still firmly established, but the modern theory includes Mendel's discovery of the mechanism of heredity. Creationism's conflation of the two is intentional, and you demonstrate the very reason why I make the distinction - all the ambiguity and equivocation that comes with creationist's use of the word "evolution".



That's pretty much your position, so far. So do you want to talk about Darwinian theory, or the Modern Synthesis, that includes genetics?



And the second step, and the third, and the fourth... Speciation doesn't stop. Populations continue to evolve and sometimes, give rise to even more different new species.

That's about it.



The creationist argument is like the man who says that it's possible for a human to walk one hundred yards, but it's impossible to walk 50 miles.



That's what it is. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa.



Much like driving to the edge of your town is an astronomically small part in the process of driving across the country. The key is in understanding that the process works the same way, no matter how far you drive.



Turns out that you're wrong...

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The discovery of a “frogamander,” a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-frogamander-fossil-idUSN2134298920080522



Actually, that's what we've observed to happen. New species. That's what macroevolution is.



Random mutation and natural selection. Usually. There can be speciation by random change in small populations, but it usually leads to nothing new.



As you now realize, the evidence shows that is how it happens.



Sorry, that idea won't work. Without evolution, as we see it happening, common descent would not be possible. If you find that difficult to understand, we can talk about it further. But I think if you thought about it for a while, you'd see shy.



Which fits nicely into a family tree, as Linnaeus first noted. (he didn't have any idea why) Later, when we learned about genetics, scientists predicted that genes would show us the same family tree. Turns out it does to a very high level of precision. And we know it demonstrates common descent, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.



A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or more simply, "descent with modification." The former, as I explained earlier, includes the modern theory which includes genetics.



Of course. And as the process continues, populations diverge and become more and more different. Most professional creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families. If they retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.



If you can walk on water, then I suppose so. It's like arguing that giant redwood trees can't grow to adulthood from a seed, because no one has ever seen it happen. Such arguments contain their own seeds of failure. Pointless to even bring them up.

Let me go try.



Change in allele frequency in a population over time.



Yep. I've been considering that for over half a century now. The biggest obstacle was from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Must have been a real challenge. Took about a billion years, given the fossil record. The likely process was endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that? Or any other step in the process, if you like. What would you like to talk about?



How about a mutation that allows the brain to be more resistant to cancer during radiation therapy?

Radiation Oncology 2012 Oct 30;7:181
EGFR mutations are associated with favorable intracranial response and progression-free survival following brain irradiation in non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases.
Lee HL1, Chung TS, Ting LL, Tsai JT, Chen SW, Chiou JF, Leung HW, Liu HE.

Neuro-oncology
Volume 12
November 2010

Nineteen (20%) patients had solitary BM with no sites of extracranial metastatic disease at the time of brain involvement; this was significantly more common in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors (31% vs 7%, P = .03). In EGFR-mutant patients, active systemic disease was very common at the time of BM, with 83% of patients having either new or progressive disease outside of the brain within 1 month of BM diagnosis. In EGFR wild-type patients, this proportion was significantly lower (62%, P = .001).
April F. Eichler Kristopher T. Kahle Daphne L. Wang Victoria A. Joshi Henning Willers Jeffrey A. Engelman Thomas J. Lynch Lecia V. Sequist

Tetrachromats. A very few humans have a mutation that wires eyes and brain to have four primary colors, rather than three. In vertebrates, the retina is part of the brain.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/313c/ebb88197fba22a2ec96fdcea9171395268da.pdf



Yep. The bad ones tend to be removed, and only the good ones tend to increase in a population. That's the point. Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it work?



As you just learned, it requires random mutations and natural selection.



If you'd set your pride aside, for a bit, you might be more successful. Most scientists who are believers are more humble than you seem to be.



Of course. Biologists just know a little more about the details than you do.



It's worth pointing out that Huxley won a debate with Owen, by showing him that a chimpanzee has the same brain structures as a human, only differing in size and somewhat in shape.

So it's more subtle than you seem to think it is.

Man I love that frogamander. Good stuff.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's just a matter of how we communicate. If I was an a non creationist, or a TE it would be fine to call it a fact between each other because we are both going to place it as bed rock in our conversation.

The problem is semantics. Evolution is a fact. We observe it happening. Remember, the proper definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." That's what we see happening, and we have given it the name "evolution." We could just as well call it "descent with modification" and it would be no more or less true than it is now. There are some theories that explain it. Currently, the theory that most accurately explains and predicts it is the Modern Synthesis, which is essentially Darwinian theory plus genetics.

Creationists usually think of evolution to be one of the consequences of evolution, that is common descent. Common descent is an inference, based on evidence. It's accepted by almost all biologists because the evidence is overwhelming, and from many different independent sources. And it's accepted because it has made numerous predictions which have been verified repeatedly.

If everyone could get the terminology straight, we'd be in pretty good shape. I suspect that some of the professional creationists deliberately obfuscate, because criticizing something that is directly observed is not a very good tactic.

 

[Sanoy]

The problem is semantics. Evolution is a fact. We observe it happening. Remember, the proper definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." That's what we see happening, and we have given it the name "evolution." We could just as well call it "descent with modification" and it would be no more or less true than it is now. There are some theories that explain it. Currently, the theory that most accurately explains and predicts it is the Modern Synthesis, which is essentially Darwinian theory plus genetics.

Creationists usually think of evolution to be one of the consequences of evolution, that is common descent. Common descent is an inference, based on evidence. It's accepted by almost all biologists because the evidence is overwhelming, and from many different independent sources. And it's accepted because it has made numerous predictions which have been verified repeatedly.

If everyone could get the terminology straight, we'd be in pretty good shape. I suspect that some of the professional creationists deliberately obfuscate, because criticizing something that is directly observed is not a very good tactic.

Yeah there is so much equivocation in terminology between the two sides and no nuance allowed. There is so much that we actually agree on, but we wind up disagreeing on because we don't allow for any nuance. This section of the forum is so polemically reactionary, but we can always ask, "hey, what do you mean by X".

 

[ThatCanadianDude_88]

Your previous claim was that all brain-related mutations were harmful. Have you abandoned that claim? As for proving that any mutation is beneficial, do you have any idea how hard it is to "prove" that any mutation is beneficial in a organism like humans? What we do know is that there is lots of genetic variation -- the product of mutations -- in brain-related genes and that many of these genetic variants are associated with subtle variation in intelligence. That's strong evidence that the human brain is some monolithic product of genetic perfection that cannot tolerate change. This kind of variation is the raw material that natural selection acts upon.

Not at all. The point of me asking the question comes from this position. We know how mutations impact us as far as the brain is concerned. The problem comes with how mutations are the only practical explanation for such significant changes in brain development from an evolutionary viewpoint, but the evidence clearly tells us in which way mutations impact the organism when it affects the brain, and it is never good. Yet, mutations are responsible for such an incredible brain overhaul when it comes to the homo sapien lineage? Is this not suppression of the evidence, when one is unable to see the obvious conclusion that is in front of them?

Read this post.

Human Evolution Falsified?

 

[ThatCanadianDude_88]

O.K.



You've been misled about that. For example, Hall observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a culture of bacteria by natural selection and random mutation. Speciation has been directly observed. Would you like to learn more about it?



So what step between say, reptiles and mammals do you suppose could not have come about by gradual change? Let's see what you have to show us.



I'm thinking it's that you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. You should know, BTW, that the evolutionary theory accepted today is modified by the findings of genetics. Interestingly, Mendel's discovery of genes cleared up a real problem for Darwinian evolution. Would you like to learn about that?

But first, just so we know you know, how about telling us Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory? Which of them do you think are not observed?



While Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, genetics has changed the theory significantly. If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, you should at least know what it is.



As you might be starting to suspect, common descent isn't part of evolutionary theory. It's a consequence of evolution. But remember, modern evolutionary theory is not classic Darwinian theory.



That's the hard part for creationists. If you want to talk about "modern evolutionary theory", you have to know what it is.

Darwin's main points are still firmly established, but the modern theory includes Mendel's discovery of the mechanism of heredity. Creationism's conflation of the two is intentional, and you demonstrate the very reason why I make the distinction - all the ambiguity and equivocation that comes with creationist's use of the word "evolution".



That's pretty much your position, so far. So do you want to talk about Darwinian theory, or the Modern Synthesis, that includes genetics?



And the second step, and the third, and the fourth... Speciation doesn't stop. Populations continue to evolve and sometimes, give rise to even more different new species.

That's about it.



The creationist argument is like the man who says that it's possible for a human to walk one hundred yards, but it's impossible to walk 50 miles.



That's what it is. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa.



Much like driving to the edge of your town is an astronomically small part in the process of driving across the country. The key is in understanding that the process works the same way, no matter how far you drive.



Turns out that you're wrong...

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The discovery of a “frogamander,” a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-frogamander-fossil-idUSN2134298920080522



Actually, that's what we've observed to happen. New species. That's what macroevolution is.



Random mutation and natural selection. Usually. There can be speciation by random change in small populations, but it usually leads to nothing new.



As you now realize, the evidence shows that is how it happens.



Sorry, that idea won't work. Without evolution, as we see it happening, common descent would not be possible. If you find that difficult to understand, we can talk about it further. But I think if you thought about it for a while, you'd see shy.



Which fits nicely into a family tree, as Linnaeus first noted. (he didn't have any idea why) Later, when we learned about genetics, scientists predicted that genes would show us the same family tree. Turns out it does to a very high level of precision. And we know it demonstrates common descent, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.



A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or more simply, "descent with modification." The former, as I explained earlier, includes the modern theory which includes genetics.



Of course. And as the process continues, populations diverge and become more and more different. Most professional creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families. If they retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.



If you can walk on water, then I suppose so. It's like arguing that giant redwood trees can't grow to adulthood from a seed, because no one has ever seen it happen. Such arguments contain their own seeds of failure. Pointless to even bring them up.

Let me go try.



Change in allele frequency in a population over time.



Yep. I've been considering that for over half a century now. The biggest obstacle was from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Must have been a real challenge. Took about a billion years, given the fossil record. The likely process was endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that? Or any other step in the process, if you like. What would you like to talk about?



How about a mutation that allows the brain to be more resistant to cancer during radiation therapy?

Radiation Oncology 2012 Oct 30;7:181
EGFR mutations are associated with favorable intracranial response and progression-free survival following brain irradiation in non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases.
Lee HL1, Chung TS, Ting LL, Tsai JT, Chen SW, Chiou JF, Leung HW, Liu HE.

Neuro-oncology
Volume 12
November 2010

Nineteen (20%) patients had solitary BM with no sites of extracranial metastatic disease at the time of brain involvement; this was significantly more common in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors (31% vs 7%, P = .03). In EGFR-mutant patients, active systemic disease was very common at the time of BM, with 83% of patients having either new or progressive disease outside of the brain within 1 month of BM diagnosis. In EGFR wild-type patients, this proportion was significantly lower (62%, P = .001).
April F. Eichler Kristopher T. Kahle Daphne L. Wang Victoria A. Joshi Henning Willers Jeffrey A. Engelman Thomas J. Lynch Lecia V. Sequist

Tetrachromats. A very few humans have a mutation that wires eyes and brain to have four primary colors, rather than three. In vertebrates, the retina is part of the brain.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/313c/ebb88197fba22a2ec96fdcea9171395268da.pdf



Yep. The bad ones tend to be removed, and only the good ones tend to increase in a population. That's the point. Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it work?



As you just learned, it requires random mutations and natural selection.



If you'd set your pride aside, for a bit, you might be more successful. Most scientists who are believers are more humble than you seem to be.



Of course. Biologists just know a little more about the details than you do.



It's worth pointing out that Huxley won a debate with Owen, by showing him that a chimpanzee has the same brain structures as a human, only differing in size and somewhat in shape.

So it's more subtle than you seem to think it is.

Bacteria cultures are bacteria cultures. It is a different thing entirely to talk about fish evolving into amphibians and then into reptiles and mammals. This isn't even in the same ball-park, so how can we attribute one as evidence for the other? Yet this is done all the time, on the presupposition that evolution simply is, and did it all - regardless of how much or little we know. We assume it's all evolution, and that apart from rational analysis of the actual evidence on hand, evolution is simply able to do. Is that really how it works? From what I know, the evidence is supposed to form the conclusion, not the other way around. Modern evolutionary theory, from what I see, is in large part about gross over-extrapolatons. Why are you using the term speciation in the context of bacteria cultures, and why are you saying we observe Darwinian evolution here?

We cannot observe DE because of time-scale, that's the whole point of contention. Non-observable and in contention with the evidence, you just won't find pro-evolution proponents ever conceding on this point, understandably so (see previous post about the human brain). The problem comes when you start calling things "Darwinian evolution" when it is not, such as the example you gave of bacteria cultures. The point of using the term "Darwinian" is to emphasize descent with modification, not bacteria sitting in a petri dish.

I've noted that this is a popular argument, as if it is up to the critiques to "prove" what is stopping evolution. Why can't we just walk 50 miles? Because that's just not how it works. Conclusions are to be bound by actual evidence, it isn't up to anyone to prove how it is impossible for evolution to produce miracles.

I understand modern evolutionary theory and the place of genetics, perhaps not as in depth as you - but that doesn't mean that my points are invalid or that I am guilty of being "misled". To the contrary.

Also, to go back to a previous point - evolution did not produce common descent. It is the theory put forward to explain how common descent took place. Once again, this is starting with the conclusion, backwards.

 

[TerryHueffed]

Hello Everyone

This thread is mostly directed to TEs. I have been studying evolution for years and learned a lot on the topic, I would simply like to raise some key issues and see what the pro-evolution community here thinks. I am not here to argue or prove a point, I just want to present some observations and possibly get some feedback. Feel free to pick and choose points if you find answering them all might be too much for you, I can understand things can get quickly comprehensive when discussing these kinds of topics.

Note that I intentionally use the term Darwinian evolution, I want to make it clear what it is I am discussing. I do not want to get lost in terminology or shifty definitions. Universal common descent through natural selection and random mutation.

Macro-evolution: The commonplace argument of evolutionists is that there is no distinction between large scale or small scale evolution, it's just all evolution. Yet the reason why macro-evolution was introduced in the first place was due to the observation that micro-variations are not enough to explain universal common descent (UCD), and that something distinct had to happen in order for species to become entirely new species - translating to complete overhauls of biological make-up. Is the macro-evolution argument not valid, and should it not be viewed and treated uniquely?

Evolution is a fact: Should we call evolution a fact? Is not the actual observed fact genetics? Is it not impossible to empirically verify evolution due to time scale? I would think earth's record of life, the geological column and fossil record, should be the most critical and central forms of evidence. My point: how can we consider evolution fact when, practically speaking, it hinges on our interpretation of the fossil record, emphasis on the word interpretation. The whole point of a scientific fact is that no interpretation is required for it to be demonstrated true. The issue I have is classifying Darwinian evolution as a fact.

Fossil record: Is not the fossil record incompatible with Darwinian evolution? Stasis dominates the trends, phyletic gradualism is not what the evidence suggests. I would think this is a very pertinent issue, considering the introduction of certain theories such as PE, which suggests that at least some scientists are objective enough to understand what the fossil record is saying, yet at the same time still hold to evolution. Is not PE ad hoc?

Cambrian explosion: Fundamental period in the biological narrative of life on earth. The claim is that this isn't a problem for DE, or is it? Namely, the introduction of many novel lifeforms with no evolutionary history. Wouldn't DE be an inconclusive theory at best?

Random mutations: My biggest qualm with DE. It seems DE requires a pseudo form of mutations that do not exist. We know that random mutations are contingencies in the genome, more than 99% of them being deleterious or benign and thus have no bearing on evolution. DE requires what I refer to as a "god" mechanism, considering all the work that is required for the remapping, revamping and readapting of entire genomes. Is modern science truly being honest in how it is using the random mutation clause...I have seen instances where it is not known or understood how something evolved, but the assumption is that it "evolved" with scientists making it a matter of X mutations over Y amount of time, an example of this is being...

The Human brain: Mutations in brain-related genes invariably produce reduced fitness and often to an astronomical degree. Consider the LUCA between the chimp and human, 5-7 million years, and the fact that it would have required a brain overhaul - thousands of mutations across thousands of brain related genes - in order for evolution to have produced the human brain, a revamping of the genetic underpinnings. Considering the time span and the complete lack of means via mutation, is it a viable position to deny that the human brain is a product of evolutionary processes?

 

[TerryHueffed]

I agree with you concerning micro-evolution but in order for the theory of evolution to be valid, there needs to be evidence that one species can evolve into another species, Macro-evolution. No such evidence exists, and all the evidence offered to support species evolving into other species has been proven false. In the book, "Evolution Satan's Lie & Proof God Exists," and another book, "The Evolution Handbook, the latest science proves the theory of evolution a failed theory." The theory of evolution eliminates the possibility of God. Everything was created via an accident of elements coming together and forming life. Again no evidence for this ever happening, however, Harold Urey & Halton Arp attempted to prove that life evolved from chemicals in the sea. However, it was later discovered that the early atmosphere had oxygen and their experiment didn't include this element.

God has signed His signature on all of His creation and this signature can be seen in everything. It was popularized by a gentleman named Fibonacci. if you go to youtube and enter Fibonacci in nature there will be many videos showing God's signature on everything.

Charles Darwin once said, " 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.” We know that cells are given locomotion via the flagellum motor. If one piece of this motor within a cell was missing via evolution, cells would not have any locomotion and therefore nullifies the theory of evolution.

 

[sfs]

Not at all. The point of me asking the question comes from this position. We know how mutations impact us as far as the brain is concerned. The problem comes with how mutations are the only practical explanation for such significant changes in brain development from an evolutionary viewpoint, but the evidence clearly tells us in which way mutations impact the organism when it affects the brain, and it is never good.

I asked you before where you got that idea and you didn't answer. Where is your evidence for this assertion? What is your expertise in human genetics? Based on the evidence from genome-wide association scans and from scans for evidence of positive selection, your claim is almost certainly wrong.

Yet, mutations are responsible for such an incredible brain overhaul when it comes to the homo sapien lineage? Is this not suppression of the evidence, when one is unable to see the obvious conclusion that is in front of them?

What evidence? All you've presented is a bald claim.

Read this post.

Human Evolution Falsified?

Okay, that literally did make me burst out laughing. You're getting your understanding of the genetics of human brain evolution from Mark Kennedy? Seriously? Mark's been here for years and he seems like a nice enough guy, but his understanding of genetics is woefully lacking.

 

[sfs]

The theory of evolution eliminates the possibility of God.

Wait, what? When did that happen? And why did no one tell the hundreds of millions of Christians who have no problem with the theory of evolution? Why did no one tell Billy Graham or C.S. Lewis?

 

[sfs]

Also, to go back to a previous point - evolution did not produce common descent. It is the theory put forward to explain how common descent took place. Once again, this is starting with the conclusion, backwards.

More accurately, we have overwhelming evidence for common descent. We can observe natural processes that change species and that produce adaptive change, processes that include mutation and natural selection. We observe that genetic differences between species look exactly like the result of these processes occurring over millions of years. We observe that the observed rate of change produced by these processes is orders of magnitude faster than would be required to explain the history of life on this planet. From these observations, we conclude that these processes are the most likely explanation for common descent. Given the complete absence of any other model that explains the data, some version of Darwinian evolution will remain the scientific model until that situation changes.

 

[sfs]

Read this post.

Human Evolution Falsified?

Also, if you read that thread you'll see that I not only read that post, I responded to it at length. (And gave two more examples of beneficial brain-related mutations to boot.)

 

[Deborah D]

More accurately, we have overwhelming evidence for common descent. We can observe natural processes that change species and that produce adaptive change, processes that include mutation and natural selection. We observe that genetic differences between species look exactly like the result of these processes occurring over millions of years. We observe that the observed rate of change produced by these processes is orders of magnitude faster than would be required to explain the history of life on this planet. From these observations, we conclude that these processes are the most likely explanation for common descent. Given the complete absence of any other model that explains the data, some version of Darwinian evolution will remain the scientific model until that situation changes.

We can "observe natural processes that change species" in some way, but what we cannot observe are natural processes changing one kind of creature into a completely different kind of creature (scientific jargon aside). The FACT is that we CANNOT OBSERVE this process called Darwinian evolution. You just made this clear by stating your belief that these "processes" occurred over a span of millions of years.

Plus, you have to ASSUME the "millions of years" lie in order for Darwin's theory to make any sense at all. That's a HUGE assumption! You sound as though you're a scientist. Why are you willing to make it? Why are you willing to ASSUME anything of such monumental consequence?


It's funny (and sad at the same time) that you mention Billy Graham. I don't think that he really bought into Darwinian evolution. At least, that's not my understanding of what he said about the Big Bang Theory. When I gave my life to Jesus Christ many years ago in college, I had previously believed a lot of lies, including Darwinian evolution. I decided at that point to go to God's Word, the Bible, for the truth. I often said that I didn't care if Billy Graham or some other Christian leader said something; if it was contrary to God's word, I wouldn't believe it. If Graham believed a lie about the origin of all living creatures, why would I believe that lie just because he did?

No doubt what I've said sounds ridiculous to you. That's the saddest thing of all--that some Christians are convinced that a theory so contrary to God's Word is true. I pray that you will know the truth!

 

[sfs]

We can "observe natural processes that change species" in some way, but what we cannot observe are natural processes changing one kind of creature into a completely different kind of creature (scientific jargon aside).

What's a completely different kind of creature? Are chimpanzees and humans different kinds? They're both mammals, and they're both primates.

The FACT is that we CANNOT OBSERVE this process called Darwinian evolution.

(Note: if we were using scientific jargon, we'd say that we can observe Darwinian evolution, since any change in a species involving natural selection is Darwinian evolution. But leave that aside.) No, we cannot observe millions of years of evolution since we don't live for millions of years. What we can observe is the evidence left behind, and see if it looks like what we would expect if evolution did indeed happen. And we have lots and lots of evidence, especially from genetics. What we observe is that genetics looks exactly like evolution has happened for millions of years. In fact, we can actually predict in considerable detail what kinds of things we will see before we even look at the evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, can't predict anything at all about genetic data. Why do you suppose that is if it's true?

Plus, you have to ASSUME the "millions of years" lie in order for Darwin's theory to make any sense at all. That's a HUGE assumption! You sound as though you're a scientist. Why are you willing to make it? Why are you willing to ASSUME anything of such monumental consequence?

Good heavens. That life has been around for millions of years (billions, actually) isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion based on overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence. That the earth was very old was established scientifically long before Darwin; scientific discoveries since then have only confirmed and more precise the great age of our planet, over and over and over again. A young earth is scientifically impossible.

It's funny (and sad at the same time) that you mention Billy Graham. I don't think that he really bought into Darwinian evolution. At least, that's not my understanding of what he said about the Big Bang Theory.

Your response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't say that you or anyone should accept evolution just because Billy Graham did. I said that the fact that people like Graham had no problem with evolution demonstrate that you can both accept evolution and believe in God. (By the way, here's what Graham actually wrote about evolution: “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”)

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ many years ago in college, I had previously believed a lot of lies, including Darwinian evolution. I decided at that point to go to God's Word, the Bible, for the truth. I often said that I didn't care if Billy Graham or some other Christian leader said something; if it was contrary to God's word, I wouldn't believe it.

Well, good. Have you ever considered the possibility that it's your interpretation of the Bible that's at issue, not the Bible itself? Have you read any of the Bible scholars and theologians (e.g. John Walton, N.T. Wright) who see no conflict between the Bible and evolution? Do you really think that you alone are the authority about what the Bible says?