This is a fundamental mistake that marks a deep flaw in you thinking. Eating protein and working your brain can never account for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. It's not only wrong, it's absurd.
Did you not read the studies? A change in diet is believed to have allowed the evolution of the brain. I never said that eating protein
causes a change in the genes involved in brain development, as you seem to think.
For your mistakes, I can find quotations proving you made them. You can't find where I said that eating protein causes genetic change - because I never suggested that.
I showed you guys a very interesting difference in a regulatory gene. In 400 million years it allowed only 2 substitutions then suddenly there were 18. I tried to show you what had to change and you buried the substantive discussion.
I think there were actually some insertions in there, because one hairpin of the RNA molecule grows, doesn't it. Perhaps this is where you got confused.
I know the difference between a substitution and a frameshift mutation. This is a frameshift:
So you admit that when I said, "substitutions don't cause frameshifts" and you responded with "yes they do" you were wrong?
You don't know what a triplet codon is do you?
A triplet codon is a sequence of bases which code for a particular amino acid.
The triplet codon is
not identical with the amino acid.
Will you admit at least that a triplet codon is not an amino acid, even if you won't admit that you made the mistake?
You've missed the mistake you made about essential amino acids.
That's three mistakes you're still denying.
There is a reason certain genes are highly conserved, it's because they give rise to deleterious affects.
Lahn and his team argue that this selective process impacted a significant fraction of genes in the human genome. They estimate there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This staggering number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process.
(Human cognitive abilities resulted from intense evolutionary selection, says Lahn)
Irrelevant. Your point was that the changes to the hARf1 gene could not have happened because at some point a frameshift would have drastically altered the meaning of the gene. This is wrong, because the mRNA is never translated.
This is the fourth mistake you are refusing to admit to, and this is
fundamental to your argument.
I'm not the one dragging this conversation off topic, now you are resorting to a flame.
This is still on-topic, mark, because you act like an authority on the subject yet make basic mistakes and refuse to admit it. One of your mistakes is fundamental to your argument, others are merely irritatingly ironic.
You keep trying to make a point of substitutions don't cause frameshifts. What you don't seem to realize is I don't care, it has nothing to do with the subject of Design and the Brain. Clearly vital organs in general and genes involved in neural functions in particular do not respond well to mutations.
What do you mean, "clearly?" What studies are you citing? None.
What may be clear, but which you have not established, is that some genes involved in neural functions are more unlikely to receive beneficial mutations. But that's irrelevant, because you never established that that would be impossible.
The change in mutation rate is accounted for by the change in diet which allowed mutations which gave us bigger brains to be beneficial.
Show me a single beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.
Why? I'm not a neural geneticist. Are you asserting that there are no possible mutations which would produce a better brain? Well, that's just an argument from ignorance.
The thing is, I can show you a list of disease and disorder as long as your arm.
Pick a chromosome, any chromosome:
Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer
Here are some of the things you will find:
Alzeheimers, Epilepsy, Hunting-like Degeneratetive Disorder and brain tumors. You don't understand how many differences there are on a genetic basis between humans and apes.
And what have you established? That there are deleterious mutations to the brain. Have you established that there are no beneficial ones, or further, that there were none? No.
Stop claiming you have, and admit your mistakes, please.