Human Evolution Falsified?

[Quantum Paradise]

Just though I'd share this, would be very interesting to get everyone's take on this, specifically the TEs. What you think?

< Creation-Evolution Headlines > (December 30th post)

Human Evolution Falsified 12/30/2004

The title of this entry comes from the data, not from the claims being made about it. The cover story in Cell1 this week has set off a flurry of startling headlines: EurekAlert pronounces, &#8220;Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event&#8221; and &#8220;University of Chicago researchers discovered that humans are a &#8216;privileged&#8217; evolutionary lineage.&#8221;

The gist of the research by Dorus et al. from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Chicago is that there is a huge genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors. EurekAlert explains:

One of the study&#8217;s major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. &#8220;For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,&#8221; said [Bruce] Lahn [HHMI}. &#8220;Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We&#8217;ve done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes &#8212; and even that is a conservative estimate.&#8221;

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked &#8220;extra-hard&#8221; during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

1Dorus et al., &#8220;Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens,&#8221; Cell Volume 119, Issue 7, 29 December 2004, Pages 1027-1040, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.040.

We are glad to be able to announce the downfall of Saddam Darwin to end this eventful year, 2004. Now there are just a few Darwin Party insurgents to mop up, and the public will be free of this deadly totalitarian regime. (Would that it were so easy; it would be like Bush&#8217;s premature victory speech.)

The science outlets are spinning this story without letting go of Darwinism. They are throwing around phrases like strong selection, intensified selection and other nonsense as if random mutations conspired to sculpt the most complex piece of matter in the known universe. They know better. Orthogenesis (straight-line evolution) is out. Teleology is out. Personifying natural selection is out, so all they have to work with are thousands of random, undirected changes over thousands of different genes that have no ability to conspire with one another. (In fact, they counteract one another; see 11/29/2004 and 10/19/2004 headlines). But if even one beneficial mutation is hard to find (see 03/19/2002 headline), how is any rational person to believe that thousands &#8211; &#8220;and that is a conservative estimate&#8221; &#8211; accomplished such a feat? The gig is up, Darwin Party: surrender. It&#8217;s over. Throw down your arms.

The award for Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week goes to Bruce Lahn for his one-liner that &#8220;selection has worked &#8216;extra-hard&#8217; during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.&#8221; This can serve as USO entertainment for the liberation troops as they begin their clean-up operations.
Next headline on: Early Man &#8226; Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

 

[Smidlee]

No. Human evolution was not falsified since you have to prove natural selection didn't worked "extra-hard" to create our powerful brains.

 

[gluadys]

Just though I'd share this, would be very interesting to get everyone's take on this, specifically the TEs. What you think?

< Creation-Evolution Headlines > (December 30th post)

Human Evolution Falsified 12/30/2004

The title of this entry comes from the data, not from the claims being made about it. The cover story in Cell1 this week has set off a flurry of startling headlines: EurekAlert pronounces, “Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event” and “University of Chicago researchers discovered that humans are a ‘privileged’ evolutionary lineage.”

The gist of the research by Dorus et al. from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Chicago is that there is a huge genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors. EurekAlert explains:

One of the study’s major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. “For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said [Bruce] Lahn [HHMI}. “Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We’ve done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes — and even that is a conservative estimate.”

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked “extra-hard” during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

1Dorus et al., “Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens,” Cell Volume 119, Issue 7, 29 December 2004, Pages 1027-1040, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.040.

Ten year old news. Just remember that "special event" is still a special evolutionary event. Lahn is not suggesting otherwise. As you see, his title begins "Accelerated Evolution . . . "

 

[mark kennedy]

I wouldn't say falsified, I'd say nullified. The human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes and yet you are supposed to assume that is exactly what happened. If we don't make the first assumption of Darwinism then there is a second one the kicks in automatically that we are ignorant. Both propositions are fallacious, facetious and false.

&#8220;Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event&#8221; and &#8220;University of Chicago researchers discovered that humans are a &#8216;privileged&#8217; evolutionary lineage.&#8221;

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

The gist of the research by Dorus et al. from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Chicago is that there is a huge genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors. EurekAlert explains:

One of the study&#8217;s major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. &#8220;For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,&#8221; said [Bruce] Lahn [HHMI}. &#8220;Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We&#8217;ve done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes &#8212; and even that is a conservative estimate.&#8221;

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked &#8220;extra-hard&#8221; during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

1Dorus et al., &#8220;Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens,&#8221; Cell Volume 119, Issue 7, 29 December 2004, Pages 1027-1040, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.040.[/COLOR]

I've been beating Darwinians up with this one for years, they really don't have an answer for it, I mean virtually none. The question is simply this, has science ever identified a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related human gene? The answer is unavoidable, there isn't a single example to be found. What science knows about mutations and the human brain is a long list of disease, disorder and death.

Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.

Human Genome Project Landmark Poster

In order to examine the scientific basis for common descent I propose to examine the genetic basis for the common descent of humans from that of apes. The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :

&#8220;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.&#8221; (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Darwin discussed what he called the 'bane of horticulture', this was infertility. Haldane in 'The Cost of Natural Selection indicated "genetic deaths," which is either deaths or it's equivalents in reduced fertility. He said that it would take 300 generations for a beneficial mutation to become fixed with 1667 accrued in 10 million years.

Like Darwin, he used artificial selection to illustrate what would have had to happen in natural settings:

"especially in slowly breeding animals such as cattle, one cannot cull even half the females, even though only one in a hundred of them combines the various qualities desired." (Haldane, The Cost of Natural Selection)​

For us to have evolved from apes it would have required an accelerated evolution of brain related genes. The evolution of the human brain would have had to start it's accelerated evolution on a molecular basis some 2 million years ago and within Homo Erectus (considered human by most creationists) would have had a brain size twice that of the Austropihicene and early Hominids:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.​

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc​

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5&#8211;1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)The ASPM gene while 99.3% the same for the human&#8211;chimpanzee comparison is marked by ten insertions/deletions equal to or longer than 50 bp, all of them located within introns. Primary microcephaly (MCPH) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by global reduction in cerebral cortical volume.(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003) In addition, a total of 2014 genes or ~10% of brain related genes analyzed differed in expression between humans and chimpanzees brains.(Genome Res. 14:1462-1473, 2004 ).

Evolutionists used to be able to use a 10 million year timeline, then it was 5 million years but when it comes to the most important adaptation you are looking at less then 1 million years and realistically it's only half that.

Darwin's null hypothesis for common descent is not unanswerable:

&#8220;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.&#8221; (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

If you take the road less traveled and choose to question common descent popularized by Darwin I submit that human brain evolution is prime topic. Darwin's theory is supposed to absolutely break down if a complex organ by decent with modification. My proposal is simply this, the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Smidlee]

Darwin's null hypothesis for common descent is not unanswerable:

&#8220;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.&#8221; (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

In another words you got to prove it's impossible for evolution to perform miracles.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

If evolution (and the term is so vague in some circles as to be nearly meaningless) had been 'falsified' about ten years ago, it would not still be studied and researched. Had the theory been falsified, at the very least, the basic 'understandings' would be altered and a new name applied. None of that seems to have happened.

The only thing to be learned is the group who wrote and or published this article ('Creation Safaris') do not understand what 'falsified' means in this context.

 

[mark kennedy]

If evolution (and the term is so vague in some circles as to be nearly meaningless) had been 'falsified' about ten years ago, it would not still be studied and researched. Had the theory been falsified, at the very least, the basic 'understandings' would be altered and a new name applied. None of that seems to have happened.

The only thing to be learned is the group who wrote and or published this article ('Creation Safaris') do not understand what 'falsified' means in this context.

Very true, evolution as a natural phenomenon is something no one really denies. 'The change of alleles in populations over time' is perfectly consistent with any and all sciences and theologies. Darwinian evolution is another matter entirely.

 

[Smidlee]

If evolution (and the term is so vague in some circles as to be nearly meaningless) had been 'falsified' about ten years ago, it would not still be studied and researched.

I totally disagree. I've even read other scientist mention before that scientist will follow a theory even when they know it has been falsified unitl something better comes along. Neo-Darwinism is a good example as it been known for some time is false hoping for some new "evolution" story to take it's place. I know there are some ideas out to take it place yet with problems of their own.
Also abiogenesis has been shown scientifically to be impossible (as much as possible by science) yet it still studied and researched, Why? Because people still throw money at that research hoping it's true. You give me a million dollars I'll gladly take your money to research any theory you want; cold fusion, abiogenesis, Santa Claus and flying reindeer, etc.

 

[sfs]

I totally disagree. I've even read other scientist mention before that scientist will follow a theory even when they know it has been falsified unitl something better comes along. Neo-Darwinism is a good example as it been known for some time is false hoping for some new "evolution" story to take it's place. I know there are some ideas out to take it place yet with problems of their own.

Neo-darwinism has not been falsified; that's a fantasy made up by creationists who don't want evolution to be true. Sure, it's had to be modified some around the edges, but the core of the theory is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is the framework that biologists routinely use for doing their jobs.

Also abiogenesis has been shown scientifically to be impossible (as much as possible by science)

What you've written here is false. Scientists haven't come remotely close to show abiogenesis to be false.

 

[mark kennedy]

Neo-darwinism has not been falsified; that's a fantasy made up by creationists who don't want evolution to be true. Sure, it's had to be modified some around the edges, but the core of the theory is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is the framework that biologists routinely use for doing their jobs.

Neodarwinism can't be falsified, it's an a priori assumption and a poorly supported one at that. Crucial nodes of evolution and sweeping changes in highly conserved genes are assumed without qualification or the slightest chance of falsification.

What you've written here is false. Scientists haven't come remotely close to show abiogenesis to be false.

A prime example, nothing like abiogenesis has ever been demonstrated or directly observed yet it's veracity is never questioned. There is nothing like the transcendent nature of Darwinian logic in natural science, Neodarwinism alone is beyond skepticism because the only viable cause of life that exists as an explanation is categorically rejected with a vengeance. What was written there was a matter of either fact or opinion, there was no basis for falsification and your categorical rejection of any explanation with God as cause is typical of Darwinian logic.

What is the null hypothesis for Darwinian natural selection again?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[sfs]

Just though I'd share this, would be very interesting to get everyone's take on this, specifically the TEs. What you think?

I think it's a bunch of flapdoodle. Hogwash. Balderdash. The article presents no evidence at all against human evolution. What it does do is take a perfectly reasonable (and not very surprising) finding in evolutionary biology and pretend that it somehow undercuts evolution.

I'll look at a few details.

< Creation-Evolution Headlines > (December 30th post)

Human Evolution Falsified 12/30/2004

The title of this entry comes from the data, not from the claims being made about it. The cover story in Cell1 this week has set off a flurry of startling headlines: EurekAlert pronounces, “Evidence that human brain evolution was a special event” and “University of Chicago researchers discovered that humans are a ‘privileged’ evolutionary lineage.”

The gist of the research by Dorus et al. from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Chicago is that there is a huge genetic gap between human brains and those of our nearest alleged ancestors.

No, the paper doesn't say anything about a huge genetic gap. It says that there are more genetic differences in brain-related genes in primates (and especially in the human lineage) than there are in rodents. But they don't show up just between us and our nearest ancestors, some 200,000 years ago, or even between us and chimpanzees; genetic changes have been accumulating throughout the primate lineage, for the last 25 million years. So accuracy is not this guy's strong suit.

Is it really surprising, though, that brain-related genes should have changed more in primates, whose brains have been steadily getting bigger, than in rodents, whose brains have stayed the same size? I'd also expect to see accelerated evolution in hearing-related genes in bats, and in genes related to body size in blue whales.

The science outlets are spinning this story without letting go of Darwinism. They are throwing around phrases like strong selection, intensified selection and other nonsense as if random mutations conspired to sculpt the most complex piece of matter in the known universe.

So scientists are explaining an observation about the physical world in terms of processes that are known to occur, in the context of a well-supported theory. In other words, they're doing science. And this is a bad thing because . . . ?

They know better.

I would really like this author to tell me to my face that I "know better".

Orthogenesis (straight-line evolution) is out. Teleology is out.

Yeah, they've been out since Darwin.

Personifying natural selection is out,

Huh?

so all they have to work with are thousands of random, undirected changes over thousands of different genes that have no ability to conspire with one another. (In fact, they counteract one another; see 11/29/2004 and 10/19/2004 headlines). But if even one beneficial mutation is hard to find (see 03/19/2002 headline), how is any rational person to believe that thousands – “and that is a conservative estimate” – accomplished such a feat?

I don't know -- maybe by using their brains? It's not that hard to find beneficial mutations, in fact. There's clear evidence in the current human population for hundreds of beneficial mutations, just from the last 50,000 years, so thousands spread out over 25 million years isn't that big a stretch.

 

[Smidlee]

Steve Benner: We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we're up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.

Steve Benner: Origins Soufflé, Texas-Style | Suzan Mazur

Oh, it only got four paradoxes just to get to the RNA stage. Paradoxes as is going against what we know is true.

 

[sfs]

I wouldn't say falsified, I'd say nullified. The human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes and yet you are supposed to assume that is exactly what happened.

So you keep saying -- without any supporting evidence, unfortunately.

I've been beating Darwinians up with this one for years, they really don't have an answer for it, I mean virtually none.

Sure we do: Mark Kennedy's opinion about what could or could not have evolved is not evidence.

The question is simply this, has science ever identified a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related human gene? The answer is unavoidable, there isn't a single example to be found. What science knows about mutations and the human brain is a long list of disease, disorder and death.

As has been explained to you on more than one occasion, what you're asking is really far from simple. Showing that beneficial mutations occur is pretty easy; we have good genetic evidence that it happens frequently in humans. Figuring out what effect any particular mutation has, though, is hard. For example, we know that the gene for the ectodysplasin A receptor (EDAR) experienced a mutation in a baby born somewhere in eastern Asia something like 20,000 years ago. We know that the mutation was strongly favored by natural selection, since it spread rapidly in the population. After years of work, we even know several effects of the mutation -- thicker hair, more sweat glands, (probably) smaller breasts -- but we still have no idea which effect was beneficial, or why. Since this gene is active during brain development, it could be one of those beneficial brain mutations you want -- but how can we tell?

But if you really want a brain-related beneficial mutation, here's one (or rather, two): the mutant forms of the gene APOE provide strong protection against Alzheimer's disease. (Put another way, the ancestral form of the gene, known as APOE4, is a major risk factor for getting Alzheimer's.)

 

[mark kennedy]

I think it's a bunch of flapdoodle. Hogwash. Balderdash. The article presents no evidence at all against human evolution. What it does do is take a perfectly reasonable (and not very surprising) finding in evolutionary biology and pretend that it somehow undercuts evolution.

Of course the scathing rejection comes before anything substantive.

I'll look at a few details.

Of course...

No, the paper doesn't say anything about a huge genetic gap. It says that there are more genetic differences in brain-related genes in primates (and especially in the human lineage) than there are in rodents. But they don't show up just between us and our nearest ancestors, some 200,000 years ago, or even between us and chimpanzees; genetic changes have been accumulating throughout the primate lineage, for the last 25 million years. So accuracy is not this guy's strong suit.

Evolution of brain related genes occur how exactly? We both know that changes in brain related genes have deleterious effects, not sometimes and not slightly. We also know that the chimpanzee brain is dramatically smaller. This is the point where a molecular mechanism or naturally occurring phenomenon is identified as a viable cause.

Show us empty headed creationists a thing or two, what is the cause of the requisite changes in brain related genes responsible for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes.

Is it really surprising, though, that brain-related genes should have changed more in primates, whose brains have been steadily getting bigger, than in rodents, whose brains have stayed the same size? I'd also expect to see accelerated evolution in hearing-related genes in bats, and in genes related to body size in blue whales.

Actually it is quite surprising since the last node of human evolution from a Darwinian evolution was marked by a decrease in size.

So scientists are explaining an observation about the physical world in terms of processes that are known to occur, in the context of a well-supported theory. In other words, they're doing science. And this is a bad thing because . . . ?

It's called begging the question of proof when an educated guess would suffice. Nothing in physics would ever get a pass like this but Darwinism always does but of course it does, it's not subjected to the vigorous empirical demonstrative proof demanded of any of the sciences. A priori assumptions never are.

I don't know -- maybe by using their brains? It's not that hard to find beneficial mutations, in fact. There's clear evidence in the current human population for hundreds of beneficial mutations, just from the last 50,000 years, so thousands spread out over 25 million years isn't that big a stretch.

Then you should have no problem showing us a beneficial effect of a mutation in a brain related gene. Too much? Ok, how about a mutation in a protein coding gene that isn't marked by a frame shift of a truncated protein? Of course you know of many because about 3/4ths of the protein coding genes in humans and apes would have had to do exactly that.

One thing is certain, natural selection doesn't cut it. So are you going to tackle this one yourself Steve or shall we wait for one of the resident trolling specialists to bury the substantive questions raised?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[sfs]

Steve Benner: Origins Soufflé, Texas-Style | Suzan Mazur

Oh, it only got four paradoxes just to get to the RNA stage. Paradoxes as is going against what we know is true.

Um, that article doesn't say that we've ruled out abiogenesis. "Paradox" doesn't mean that something is impossible; it means we don't understand something.

Try again.

 

[sfs]

Neodarwinism can't be falsified, it's an a priori assumption and a poorly supported one at that. Crucial nodes of evolution and sweeping changes in highly conserved genes are assumed without qualification or the slightest chance of falsification.

Of course Neodarwinism is falsifiable. The core idea of common descent could be falsified with all kinds of data. As you know, since you keep trying to falsify it. Your problem is always that the data don't say what you think they say.

A prime example, nothing like abiogenesis has ever been demonstrated or directly observed yet it's veracity is never questioned.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, and nothing to falsify. There's an assumption of natural causes, which is how science works, but no model to be tested against data.

What is the null hypothesis for Darwinian natural selection again?

Neutral evolution, of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you keep saying -- without any supporting evidence, unfortunately.

It is the evolution of the human brain from that of apes that requires supporting evidence, no positive proof exists unfortunately.

Sure we do: Mark Kennedy's opinion about what could or could not have evolved is not evidence.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

As has been explained to you on more than one occasion, what you're asking is really far from simple. Showing that beneficial mutations occur is pretty easy; we have good genetic evidence that it happens frequently in humans. Figuring out what effect any particular mutation has, though, is hard.

I don't think it has, the evidence offered is generally anecdotal at best but this looks interesting..

For example, we know that the gene for the ectodysplasin A receptor (EDAR) experienced a mutation in a baby born somewhere in eastern Asia something like 20,000 years ago. We know that the mutation was strongly favored by natural selection, since it spread rapidly in the population. After years of work, we even know several effects of the mutation -- thicker hair, more sweat glands, (probably) smaller breasts -- but we still have no idea which effect was beneficial, or why. Since this gene is active during brain development, it could be one of those beneficial brain mutations you want -- but how can we tell?

Genetics is a little over a hundred years old, this is what is known about mutations in the EDAR gene:

About 20 mutations in the EDAR gene have been identified in people with hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia. Most of these mutations change a single protein building block (amino acid) in the receptor protein, although deletions of genetic material from the EDAR gene also occur. Some EDAR mutations lead to the production of an abnormal version of the ectodysplasin A receptor. These genetic changes disrupt the signaling pathway needed for the formation of ectodermal structures such as hair follicles and sweat glands. When this type of mutation is present in one copy of the EDAR gene in each cell, it results in the autosomal dominant form of hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia. (EDAR)​

Who is this Southeastern Asian kid and how do we know he had a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene?

But if you really want a brain-related beneficial mutation, here's one (or rather, two): the mutant forms of the gene APOE provide strong protection against Alzheimer's disease. (Put another way, the ancestral form of the gene, known as APOE4, is a major risk factor for getting Alzheimer's.)

That sounds a little backwards to me:

Apolipoprotein E-e4 (APOE4), discovered in 1993, is the first gene variation found to increase risk of Alzheimer's and remains the risk gene with the greatest known impact. Having this mutation, however, does not mean that a person will develop the disease. (What We Know Today About Alzheimer's Disease)

Afraid I'm going to need the specifics on that one, you know how hard headed us creationists are about these things.

 

[mark kennedy]

Neodarwinism can't be falsified, it's an a priori assumption and a poorly supported one at that. Crucial nodes of evolution and sweeping changes in highly conserved genes are assumed without qualification or the slightest chance of falsification.

Of course Neodarwinism is falsifiable. The core idea of common descent could be falsified with all kinds of data. As you know, since you keep trying to falsify it. Your problem is always that the data don't say what you think they say.

This is how classic Darwinism is falsified:

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. (On the Origin of Species; Difficulties of the Theory, Charles Darwin)​

I'm not aware of the one that was proposed for Neodarwinism, what is the null hypothesis for that again?

There is no theory of abiogenesis, and nothing to falsify. There's an assumption of natural causes, which is how science works, but no model to be tested against data.

How about that, something we actually agree on.

Neutral evolution, of course.

There's nothing neutral about an adaptive evolutionary change in a vital organ. Even a point mutation in a brain related gene is deleterious if not lethal. There has to be an effect and there has to be a dramatic cause for such a dramatic effect. I was under the impression that nothing like this can be assumed without a cause and effect determined conclusively or do I misunderstand the epistemology of science somehow?

 

[Smidlee]

Um, that article doesn't say that we've ruled out abiogenesis. "Paradox" doesn't mean that something is impossible; it means we don't understand something.

Try again.

Of course a OOL researcher not going to rule out abiogenesis. Give me a million dollars and I wouldn't rule it out either. Four Paradox is as close to impossible as science can come. No matter how bad the odds or the amount of paradoxes to overcome science will continue to go down a blind alley as long as you got believers willing to throw money at it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course a OOL researcher not going to rule out abiogenesis. Give me a million dollars and I wouldn't rule it out either. Four Paradox is as close to impossible as science can come. No matter how bad the odds or the amount of paradoxes to overcome science will continue to go down a blind alley as long as you got believers willing to throw money at it.

I don't know about a 'paradox' but RNA comes from DNA, it's basically half a strand. In order for RNA to proceed from some prebiotic soup it has to line up as complementary base pairs and then be assembled into protein coding genes. That's to say nothing of specificity of the organelles like mitochondria and the ribosomes...etc. That's just to get very basic life, then bacteria has to differentiate into plant and animal cells and of course, assemble into multi-cellular organisms. I could go on and on.

Crucial nodes of evolution as natural history are simply assumed, it's really as simple as that. Darwin talked about 'any organ' that couldn't be accounted for by slow, slight, successive modification. To my knowledge not only the origination of organs and organelles but major transitions like the giant leap from ape the human brain size and complexity are assumed without qualification. That's science? Science assumes nothing, Darwinism assumes everything.

I don't need them to explain all of them, I would be happy if they were even able to explain one.

Grace and peace,
Mark