Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

Now we are fauna, I don't think animalia cells are even in the same kingdom classification.

Huh?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fauna

Fauna are just animals. That's what we are. We aren't Burgess shale fauna, but we are modern fauna.

 

[Job 33:6]

The SRGAP 2 gene is another comparison requiring a giant leap of adaptive evolution. Repeated gene duplications and none of the daughter genes have any of the marks of gene duplication. Major amino acid substitions that would have to be done with clockwork precision and like I keep telling you, this never happens in human brain related genes. You just showed another devastating burden of proof to add to an astronomically improbable 18 nucleotide substitution. In both example it's extensive substitutions, not point mutations or indels which are far more common. No hint of a cause just the assumption that it must be the result of mutations. Then the fact that it shows four versions of the gene and not only must the amino acid sequence have no frameshift or deleterious effects it must fold seamlessly into its three dimensional structure. Then like I keep reminding you, this all happens 2 mya without precursors, there are no members of the genus Homo prior to Homo habilis who had a chimpanzee size brain

According to one research group they compared 10 mammalian lineages, finding only one single amino acid change between the human and mouse and no changes amount nonhuman primates within the first 9 exons of SRGAP2 orthotics. In stark contrast to the duplicate copies that show as many as 7 amino acid replacements.

They search 15,767 individuals and found 6 CVN, which are variant allele. The effects of these changes were seizures, attention deficit, brain malformation, cortical atrophy etc. No known beneficial or neutral effects noted which is exactly what you would expect from such a highly constrained gene. (Human Specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 gene by incomplete segmental duplication. Cell 2012)

I don't see any language in any of these publications indicating that their proposals are far-fetched. Nor am I aware of any responding research supporting your words.

All I really can see is your word versus the body of experts who published the research listed above.

And just to repeat, human and chimp ancestors go back 7 million years, not 2. And we do have hominid fossils that are older than 2 million years, you're just in denial of their human traits.

 

[mark kennedy]

Huh?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fauna

Fauna are just animals. That's what we are. We aren't Burgess shale fauna, but we are modern fauna.

Oh, I was under the impression it was some kind of moss. Never looked it up, I stand corrected. Good catch.

 

[Job 33:6]

You should post research and sources supporting your suggestions above @mark kennedy .

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't see any language in any of these publications indicating that their proposals are far-fetched. Nor am I aware of any responding research supporting your words.

All I really can see is your word versus the body of experts who published the research listed above.

And just to repeat, human and chimp ancestors go back 7 million years, not 2. And we do have hominid fossils that are older than 2 million years, you're just in denial of their human traits.

No, the SRGAP2 gene is believed to have emerged less then 4 mya and one of the articles you linked estimated around 2.7 mya. The expansion of the cranial capacity, where it doubled over night, could not have happened more then 2 mya, there is zero fossil evidence and it doesn't emerge until Homo erectus well under 2 mya. The requisite changes to the genes would certainly have to have occurred during that brief period of time.

What's more I'm anything but defendive, I nearly switch to theistic evolution then the genomic started coming in. Darwinians are adept at avoiding the insurmountable burden of proof, while trying to shift that responsibility on creationists. I find that kind of melodramatic hyperbole to be disingenuous at best.

 

[mark kennedy]

You should post research and sources supporting your suggestions above @mark kennedy .

I have cited the HAR 1f paper, check the bottom of #1141, I cited the Cell article I got my information regarding SRGAP2 from. Much of the rest are generalities, no need for extensive source material. Especially the fossil evidence is hardly controversial or questionable.

 

[pitabread]

What's more I'm anything but defendive, I nearly switch to theistic evolution then the genomic started coming in. Darwinians are adept at avoiding the insurmountable burden of proof, while trying to shift that responsibility on creationists.

Creationists are the ones trying to argue that human beings were created from scratch (i.e. didn't evolve from prior organisms). So yes, the burden of proof is on creationists for that.

It's not enough to merely argue against evolution or point to gaps in knowledge. You have to make a positive case for creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have cited the HAR 1f paper, check the bottom of #1141, I cited the Cell article I got my information regarding SRGAP2 from. Much of the rest are generalities, no need for extensive source material. Especially the fossil evidence is hardly controversial or questionable.

The HAR1f paper did not suggest anything abnormal about fixation if mutations and just casual everyday evolution.

I read through it and just didn't see anything wild and crazy or conflicting about their conclusions.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, the SRGAP2 gene is believed to have emerged less then 4 mya and one of the articles you linked estimated around 2.7 mya. The expansion of the cranial capacity, where it doubled over night, could not have happened more then 2 mya, there is zero fossil evidence and it doesn't emerge until Homo erectus well under 2 mya. The requisite changes to the genes would certainly have to have occurred during that brief period of time.

What's more I'm anything but defendive, I nearly switch to theistic evolution then the genomic started coming in. Darwinians are adept at avoiding the insurmountable burden of proof, while trying to shift that responsibility on creationists. I find that kind of melodramatic hyperbole to be disingenuous at best.

Good, so you accept at least a 4 million year length of time then?

The mutations that have resulted in brain development do not need to instantaneously or directly correlate to cranial capacity. Which is why a 7 million year period of time is a safe bet. Given that 7 million years is when the fossil succession suggests our common ancestor with chimpanzees, is present (contrary to what you believe).

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists are the ones trying to argue that human beings were created from scratch (i.e. didn't evolve from prior organisms). So yes, the burden of proof is on creationists for that.

It's not enough to merely argue against evolution or point to gaps in knowledge. You have to make a positive case for creation.

No, it sufficient to argue that based on the already established knowledge to two fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes would require extraordinary adaptation of highly conserved brain related genes on a scale not seen since the Cambrian. One requiring 18 substitutions in a gene that had allowed only 2 over 300 million years. Seven amino acid substitution and repeated duplications when no such adaptive evolution occurred in mammals or even other primate. 60 Devon genes created from scratch with no hint of a viable cause and all this happens suddenly 2 mya.

The burden of requires no new science, Mendelian genetics and current research indicate that these kind of changes are ridiculously unlikely, never observed or demonstrated, but assumed across the board. Sounds like your coping out again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists are the ones trying to argue that human beings were created from scratch (i.e. didn't evolve from prior organisms). So yes, the burden of proof is on creationists for that.

It's not enough to merely argue against evolution or point to gaps in knowledge. You have to make a positive case for creation.

No, it sufficient to argue that based on the already established knowledge to two fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes would require extraordinary adaptation of highly conserved brain related genes on a scale not seen since the Cambrian. One requiring 18 substitutions in a gene that had allowed only 2 over 300 million years. Seven amino acid substitution and repeated duplications when no such adaptive evolution occurred in mammals or even other primate. 60 Devon genes created from scratch with no hint of a viable cause and all this happens suddenly 2 mya.

The burden of creationism requires no new science, Mendelian genetics and current research indicate that these kind of changes are ridiculously unlikely, never observed or demonstrated, but assumed across the board. Sounds like your coping out again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists are the ones trying to argue that human beings were created from scratch (i.e. didn't evolve from prior organisms). So yes, the burden of proof is on creationists for that.

It's not enough to merely argue against evolution or point to gaps in knowledge. You have to make a positive case for creation.

No, it sufficient to argue that based on the already established knowledge to two fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes would require extraordinary adaptation of highly conserved brain related genes on a scale not seen since the Cambrian. One requiring 18 substitutions in a gene that had allowed only 2 over 300 million years. Seven amino acid substitution and repeated duplications when no such adaptive evolution occurred in mammals or even other primate. 60 Devon genes created from scratch with no hint of a viable cause and all this happens suddenly 2 mya.

The burden of creationism requires no new science, Mendelian genetics and current research indicate that these kind of changes are ridiculously unlikely, never observed or demonstrated, but assumed across the board. Sounds like your coping out again.

 

[Job 33:6]

"You just showed another devastating burden of proof to add to an astronomically improbable 18 nucleotide substitution. "

This statement here @mark kennedy is what I would like to see a source for. Nothing in any of the above research papers suggests that 18 mutations could not occur in the millions of years of time available to occur. Be that time phrame 2 million years or 6 million or anywhere in between.

2 million years sounds like an incredibly long amount of time for 18 substitutions, a number by which I could count on my fingers and toes, with relation to millions of years which is almost an incomprehensibly long amount of time with relation to the life span of people and the rates by which mutations otherwise occur in life forms.

Recent research suggests that speciation naturally occurs in 95% of organisms in 100-200,000 years. 2 million years is 10 times as long, 4 million being 20 times as long.

So really, entire species likely form multiple/several times over in the span that you seem to suggest isn't long enough for a mere 18 substitutions.

And you did source one paper that discussing HAR1f, but nothing in that paper suggested anything odd with their being 18 mutations nor their occurance in the past 2-6 million years.

 

[pitabread]

The burden of creationism requires no new science, Mendelian genetics and current research indicate that these kind of changes are ridiculously unlikely, never observed or demonstrated, but assumed across the board.

If you're arguing they weren't the result of evolution, then how did they happen?

 

[mark kennedy]

"You just showed another devastating burden of proof to add to an astronomically improbable 18 nucleotide substitution. "

This statement here @mark kennedy is what I would like to see a source for. Nothing in any of the above research papers suggests that 18 mutations could not occur in the millions of years of time available to occur. Be that time phrame 2 million years or 6 million or anywhere in between.

2 million years sounds like an incredibly long amount of time for 18 substitutions, a number by which I could count on my fingers and toes, with relation to millions of years which is almost an incomprehensibly long amount of time with relation to the life span of people and the rates by which mutations otherwise occur in life forms.

Recent research suggests that speciation naturally occurs in 95% of organisms in 100-200,000 years. 2 million years is 10 times as long, 4 million being 20 times as long.

So really, entire species likely form multiple/several times over in the span that you seem to suggest isn't long enough for a mere 18 substitutions.

And you did source one paper that discussing HAR1f, but nothing in that paper suggested anything odd with their being 18 mutations nor their occurance in the past 2-6 million years.

That is simplicity on steroids, the effect on the brain. You have a real knack for escaping the obvious.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you're arguing they weren't the result of evolution, then how did they happen?

Creation.

 

[pitabread]

Creation.

And how did that happen?

 

[Job 33:6]

That is simplicity on steroids, the effect on the brain. You have a real knack for escaping the obvious.

Well, when you can post sources that justify your case, I'll be here.

Like I said, you posted the one research paper, which was nice. It was a good read. But it didn't reflect your position, really it just reflected your opposition's position.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, when you can post sources that justify your case, I'll be here.

Like I said, you posted the one research paper, which was nice. It was a good read. But it didn't reflect your position, really it just reflected your opposition's position.

That's what I thought, you don't read the source material mad argue in circles around it. I knew you wouldn't read it Darwinians are ridiculously predictible.

 

[mark kennedy]

And how did that happen?

God.