In another thread, Mark Kennedy presented a paper published in Nature, in which researchers discovered a highly accelerated region in the human genome that is thought to be responsible for the evolution of the modern human brain. Here is how the discussion started:
The full article can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/pdf/nature05113.pdf
For anyone who may feel intimidated by the article, I'll do my best to sum it up for you...
For somewhere between 300 and 400 million years, this RNA coding region (which controls the production of a specific protein required for brain development) was very highly conserved. There are only 2 base pairs changed between this gene in a chicken and a chimpanzee.
However, current science indicates that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor only 6 million years ago. In these 6 million years, the gene in humans has acquired 18 different base pairs from that of chimps (which is huge, considering that in 400 million years there were only 2 base pair substitutions). Researchers believe that these 18 substitutions in base pairs in the region are responsible for the massive difference in brain size between humans and chimps, and as such, have dubbed the region HAR1 (human accelerated region 1).
Mark has posited that the fact that these 18 substitutions occurred so rapidly is evidence against the theory of evolution, or more specifically, the theory of common descent. He asserts that since the region was so highly conserved for so long, evolution does not account for the fact that it changed so dramatically in such a short amount of time. As such, this study provides falsifying evidence against evolutionary theory.
Before we continue this discussion, I suppose I should allow mark to verify that what I am saying of his position is correct. I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth. Is this a correct interpretation of your position mark?
Philosophy is fine when you define your central terms clearly and stick to you primary definitions. Evolutionists rarely do since the philosopher/ornithologist Ernst Mayr gave the scientific world the best definition to date for evolution and evolutionists abandon it as a matter of course. He said it was the 'change in the frequency of alleles in populations over time'. That is basically a variation of the gene which is often mistaken for a mutation.
My central point has been and remains that changes necessary for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes are not accounted for by mutations.
The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change (FDR-adjusted P , 0.0005), with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the humanchimpanzee 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. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature Sept 14, 2006)So for 400 million years this crucial RNA regulatory gene remains unchanged and remains unchanged in Chimpanzees and chickens except for a couple of nucleotides. For the human brain to have evolved it would require 18 substitutions. One thing is crystal clear, random mutations are no explanation since the deleterious affects would be devastating. With a multiplicity of mutations you get into something called synergistic epistasis where the affects are multiplied.
Don't take my word for it, look at the comparison in section a. What you will find is that there are 18 substitutions required in the human version:
No demonstrated or directly observed mechanism in natural science exists for this. Yet, despite this fundamental problem evolutionists insist on exclusively naturalistic assumptions for human origins.
One thing is certain, random mutations are no explanation at all.
The full article can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/pdf/nature05113.pdf
For anyone who may feel intimidated by the article, I'll do my best to sum it up for you...
For somewhere between 300 and 400 million years, this RNA coding region (which controls the production of a specific protein required for brain development) was very highly conserved. There are only 2 base pairs changed between this gene in a chicken and a chimpanzee.
However, current science indicates that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor only 6 million years ago. In these 6 million years, the gene in humans has acquired 18 different base pairs from that of chimps (which is huge, considering that in 400 million years there were only 2 base pair substitutions). Researchers believe that these 18 substitutions in base pairs in the region are responsible for the massive difference in brain size between humans and chimps, and as such, have dubbed the region HAR1 (human accelerated region 1).
Mark has posited that the fact that these 18 substitutions occurred so rapidly is evidence against the theory of evolution, or more specifically, the theory of common descent. He asserts that since the region was so highly conserved for so long, evolution does not account for the fact that it changed so dramatically in such a short amount of time. As such, this study provides falsifying evidence against evolutionary theory.
Before we continue this discussion, I suppose I should allow mark to verify that what I am saying of his position is correct. I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth. Is this a correct interpretation of your position mark?
