That is false. You are forgetting about all of the mutations that separate humans and chimps with respect to those brain related genes.
I'll tell you what I think, I think these flimsy corrections are disingenuous. The differences between are not mutations, they are assumed to be the result of mutations, there is a big difference. That's why discussing virtually anything with evolutionists is always so tedious, they make fundamental errors in things like semantics and in this case, basic comparative genomics, and pretend to have proof when it's nothing more then presupposition and fallacious rhetoric.
Since I know you would never bother to find a valid definition, I'll post one. Perhaps it will elevate your thinking, but I won't hold my breath waiting on that one:
Comparative genomics is a field of
biological research in which the
genomic features of different
organisms are compared.
[2][3] The genomic features may include the
DNA sequence,
genes,
gene order,
regulatory sequences, and other genomic structural landmarks.
[3] In this branch of
genomics, whole or large parts of genomes resulting from
genome projects are compared to study basic biological similarities and differences as well as
evolutionary relationships between organisms.
[2][4][5] The major principle of comparative genomics is that common features of two organisms will often be encoded within the
DNA that is evolutionarily
conserved between them.
[6] Therefore, comparative genomic approaches start with making some form of
alignment of genome sequences and looking for
orthologous sequences (sequences that share a
common ancestry) in the aligned genomes and checking to what extent those sequences are conserved. Based on these,
genome and
molecular evolution are inferred and this may in turn be put in the context of, for example,
phenotypic evolution or
population genetics.
2) Touchman, J. (2010). "Comparative Genomics". Nature Education Knowledge
3) Xia, X. (2013). Comparative Genomics. Heidelberg: Springer.
4) Russel, P.J.; Hertz, P.E.; McMillan, B. (2011). Biology: The Dynamic Science (2nd ed.).
5) Primrose, S.B.; Twyman, R.M. (2003). Principles of Genome Analysis and Genomics (3rd ed.).
6)
Hardison, R.C. (2003). "Comparative genomics" PLOS
That's what mutations are, differences in sequence. Why would it matter whether natural processes produced that difference or a deity made those changes? Let's take one of the deleterious mutations that you have cited before. Are you saying that if humans purposefully produced that same change in sequence that it wouldn't be deleterious, that it wouldn't cause disease?
No, they are changes in the sequence due to transcription errors:
In the living cell,
DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being
replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic
cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus,
mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (
Mutations)
Miraculous interpolation at the original creation of life. Have you forgotten I am a creationist or do I need to define that term for you as well. They were separately created, with independent lineages and the changes represent differences that cannot be explained by a failure of DNA repair.
The end result is the exact same. Do you think there is some magic added to a substitution when a deity causes it as compared to natural processes?
There you go begging the question of proof and equivocating differences with a presupposition of exclusively naturalistic causes, i.e. mutations.
Those beneficial mutations are the known sequence differences between the human and chimp brain related genes.
Yet they never happen in nature, they are simply assumed with regards to natural history.
You can start by showing us how a deity making a sequence change will have a different result than natural processes making that exact same sequence change.
Not some deity, God. Now you can continue to chase this in circles as long as you like but resorting to an equivocation fallacy isn't science, it's supposition.
THAT'S THE SAME THING!!!!!!
Not if they are dated after the split and classified as human ancestors, it's an impossibility for them to be the same thing. It's called the law of excluded middle, a rule of logic you should have learned before trying to pass yourself off as an evolutionary apologist.
The fossil record is the fossils in the ground. If you want to claim that there are no chimp ancestor fossils, THEN PROVE IT. Otherwise, it is just a bare assertion.
Whenever a chimpanzee fossil is dug up it's automatically and invariably a human ancestor, no matter how ape-like. I did offer substantive and well established facts in evidence making my point that you abandoned in favor of the melodramatic indignation based on nothing at all.
We already showed you the data:
Again with the we and that convoluted scattergram. Unlike you I have actually studied the fossils represented in the scattergram. Since you obvious don't argue from actual fossil evidence it's predictable that the substance of your argument comes down to a jpeg. Begging the question of proof, there is a fallacy in every line now. Pull up dude, your scraping the trees as it is.
We see overlaps from species to species and a nice steady increase in cranial capacity. All you try to do is cherry pick the data.
On the contrary, I started the OP with the strongest fossil evidence I have seen, OH 4. The Toumai I found even more persuasive, just not convincing. Where does that fit into your pusillanimous scattergram?
I am guessing that you will completely ignore this data, and then accuse us of refusing to discuss the topic. Am I right?
No I'm going to continue to insist on actual definitions and offer expositions of legitimate scientific literature no matter how many fallacious, inflammatory remarks you flood the thread with.
Us huh? You got maybe two people participating in the thread besides you. Other then that you are performing in an empty theater and somewhere lurking in the shadows the Darwinians are laughing at you. They used you for years and left you here with is no real world knowledge of evolutionary biology to make pedantic arguments alone. Sad, so much time spent on this and basic terminology, as well as sound logic, still eludes you.
Have a nice day
Mark
