Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

[USincognito]

So you don't have any examples, then? No evidence for your claim?

Mark is big on verbal judo, passive aggressive insults and selective amnesia. Get used to that if you're going to continue to engage him.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you don't have any examples, then? No evidence for your claim?

I sure did:

We report on a female patient with early infantile epileptic encephalopathy and severe psychomotor disability possessing a de novo balanced translocation t(1;9)(q32;q13). The patient showed clonic convulsions of extremities 2 days after birth. Electroencephalogram (EEG) transiently showed atypical suppression-burst pattern. (Early infantile epileptic encephalopathy associated with the disrupted gene encoding Slit-Robo Rho GTPase activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) Am J Med Genet A. 2012)
​

Quoted cited and linked. You ignored it and respond with these pedantic one liners. It's the oldest tactic on these boards, just keep asking the same question in circles no matter what the answer.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark is big on verbal judo, passive aggressive insults and selective amnesia. Get used to that if you're going to continue to engage him.

You haven't made a substantive argument in years and you just described your tactics to a tee. I haven't actually formed an argument yet, because I'm still doing the background reading which is something you would never bother with.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mutations are the known molecular mechanism for the event of getting requisite modifications.

When they have an effect in human brain cells they are invariably cause disease and disorder.

You expect to see a DNA mutation in the fossil record?

The rise of the cranial capacity approaching that of modern humans is a matter directly relevant to the genetic basis:

Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication created a novel function —at birth, antagonizing parental SRGAP2 function 2–3 mya a time corresponding to the transition from Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion....Despite these intriguing candidates, the bulk of the morphological and behavioral adaptations unique to the human lineage remain genetically unexplained...(Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
​

If you guys ever actually studied the scientific literature it would make the arguments at least relevant.

Science is not allowed to discuss God, and therefore science doesn't eliminate God.

Science comes down to cause and effect, if God is the cause then that's the cause. The only thing limiting the cause to exclusively naturalistic causes is Darwinianism:

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

That's not natural science, science makes inferences based on inductive methodologies investigating natural phenomenon. Now it is more philosophical to then deduce God as Creator but science isn't the atheistic materialism is portrayed as. What is more these discussions rarely face scientific fact, they are focused on a religious world view they attack with fallacious rhetoric. That's not science, that's supposition.

Your arguments about bad mutations being a problem are simply fallacious and you have never explained why you don't understand they are simply eliminated over time precisely because their own badness makes them go away

No, that's the case when the mutation has an effect in brain related genes. There are no known exceptions while this highly diverse, vital element of the human genome, is assumed to be the result of some unknown molecular mechanism involving dramatic restructuring of highly conserved amino acid and exon sequences. It doesn't happen in nature on this scale and yet it's universally assumed. This is nothing more then an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going back to and including the Big Bang.

The evidence for evolution remains stronger than ever. The tree of life showing common descent of all life is confirmed every time a new species is discovered, whether still alive or extinct.

It's assumed universally and we are not talking about evolution here. Evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. What you are arguing is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature that happens after life is created, whether by naturalistic or miraculous means.

Every science has areas on the cutting edge where more is still being discovered. You find these in biology and think you've found where mystery trumps established facts.

There is nothing mysterious about comparative genomics. What I am looking at is the differences and those require an extraordinary accelerated evolutionary process presently unknown to modern science.

It is no more going to succeed than those who find discussion of the mysteries of the trinity to be mysterious are going to be able to bring down Christianity.

The Trinity isn't a mystery, it's a New Testament revelation that was the result of the Incarnation. Now you are going to pontificate my religion to me the way you are going to pontificate scientific fact. I've studied both, my convictions both philosophical and theological have been the result of years of careful study and reflection.

What is mystical here is the Darwinian myth of stone age ape men magically evolving highly conserved brain related genes. Christianity will endure, science will continue unaffected, but the Darwinian idol of the mind will fall by the weight of it's own detachment from reality:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)
​

Clearly seen from the things that were made leaving people without excuse. Your not going to have to answer to me for that but you will definitely have to give an account.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

"I have made the earth, the men and the beasts which are on the face of the earth by My great power and by My outstretched arm (Jeremiah 27:5)

 

[Loudmouth]

No comprehension or acknowledgement of what a genomic comparison actually is and some convoluted semantics, you are consistant.

Sorry, but all you are doing is avoiding the evidence. You are the one using semantics, and refuse to address the results of genomic comparisons.

Transcription and translation, those are the two concepts you need to wrap your mind around and then mutations being the result of copy errors. That would be progress.

Mutations do not involve transcription or translation. That is what you need to wrap your head around. Mutations occur during replication.

Try to wrap your mind around a very simple concept, mutations are copy errors.

And copy errors occur. That is what you need to stop ignoring.

Quote mining, that a new fallacy for you. Glad to see you expanding your horizons.

Still avoiding the evidence, I see. I just showed you a quote from a peer reviewed paper where they identify very real mutations.

He didn't, God created two separate lineages. It's called originally created kinds.

You aren't answering the question.

Why would the result of God creating a mutation be any different than the result of a natural occurring mutation?

For example, here is our starting sequence:

ATGTGTTGAGTATGTG

A naturally occurring deleterious mutation occurs at the red position:

ATGTGTTCAGTATGTG

Are you saying that if God changed that same base, it would not be deleterious like the naturally occurring mutation was?

Which is an effect without a cause, predictable.

Effect: DNA and morphological phylogenies

Cause: random mutations and selection

The rest is close encounters of the pedantic one liners, enjoy the melt down, I know I will. You are falling farther and faster then I am used to, this is surprisingly easy.

Have a nice day
Mark

Your entire last post was pedantic one liners.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all I don't call people liars because I don't share their worldview or presuppositions.

You haven't been able to point to a single presupposition.

Secondly there seems to be a misunderstanding about c compaparative genomics. When they compare two sequences it's like layi g out two strands of beads with four different color beads. Every genome should show at least 25 percent sequence identity since there are only four base pairs. When it's a single base pair difference they call it a substitution if there is something in one but not in the other its called an indel. When you have three unique genes they call a duplication. Now I don't know what you think these novel genes do to my argument but so far I haven't actually made one yet but I will soon and often.

You claimed that there is no genetic basis for the increase in brain size for the human lineage. The genetic changes shown to you have falsified this argument.

If things alike are proof for common ancestry then differences argue against it.

Phylogenies are proof of common ancestry, not things that are simply alike.

 

[Loudmouth]

The are several noted including epilipsee and autism. This scenario doesn't even have to be negated based on the deleterious effects of mutations since the burden of proof is on getting two to four duplications in such a highly conserved region and then add multiply exons with perfect protein translslation in such a highly conserved gene.

The matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA meet that burden of proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think so, it sounds like a fairly typical red herring.

If you are claiming that specific mutations will be deleterious, then the burden of proof is on you to support the claim.

The burden of proof is on the positive argument for a duplication resulting in an almost perfectly developed protein product.

You haven't shown that it is an almost perfectly developed protein product.

Second, the evidence for the duplication is the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA which demonstrate evolution from a common ancestor.

What you lack is a molecular mechanism producing the requisite amino acid sequences and exon development.

Those molecular mechanisms are the mechanisms of mutation which include substitutions, insertions, deletions, and recombinations.

These burdens are cumulative when you finally realize the enormity of the required steps required.

Selection is cumulative when it selects against more than one deleterious mutation on the same chromosome.

I don't need a positive argument because the burden of proof is on whoever might think gene duplication is a viable explanation.

If gene duplications were not viable, then how could humans survive with those gene duplications?

Why would it matter if those mutations occurred naturally or supernaturally? Why would one be deleterious while the other is not?

Even if it's the case the gene duplication is viable getting the requisite protein product is riddled with deleterious effects, with no developmental pathways producing the alternate and requisite developed gene you have nothing but presupposition and speculation.

Have a nice day
Mark

What deleterious effects were caused by the gene duplication under question?

 

[Loudmouth]

No I said mutations do cause disease and disorder:

That doesn't mean that all mutations cause disease and disorder. Every human being is born with about 50 mutations, and they do not suffer from 50 new diseases not found in their parents.

In fact, I even quoted the paper where they directly measured the number of mutations in each human generation, and you ran away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is the rarest of effects from a mutation.

And?

 

[Loudmouth]

You melted down quick, don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the reading I have been doing. The real problem is that you are asking the same question in circles and it's just too bad. Yet another evidence that the rise of the human brain from that of apes is a myth and you missed the inadvertent problems with the deleterious effects that would have inevitably had to have been mitigated and you respond with fallacious rhetoric.

That's just too bad and it's your problem. I will not answer the same question in circles because I know it's just a head trip game to you guys. Do a little reading and maybe we can talk some more, other then that you are wasting your time and mine. Thanks though, this has been an invaluable contribution to my ongoing interest in why the evolution of the human brain from that of apes is impossible. You didn't even have an argument, that is priceless.

Have a nice day
Mark

Answer his question.

You claimed that the mutations needed to get from the chimp version of the SRGAP2 gene to the human version would be deleterious. Where is your evidence?

 

[AdamSK]

I sure did:

That still isn't evidence that moving from the chimp SRGAP2 to the human SRGAP2 would involve deleterious effects.

You keep claiming that drinking milk is dangerous and then citing to evidence that drinking cyanide is dangerous. Please support the claims you have actually made.

 

[mark kennedy]

That still isn't evidence that moving from the chimp SRGAP2 to the human SRGAP2 would involve deleterious effects.

You keep claiming that drinking milk is dangerous and then citing to evidence that drinking cyanide is dangerous. Please support the claims you have actually made.

What we have here is you have not bothered to learn how the comparison is characterized and what, if any, mutations are likely. That really doesn't matter because mutations are the worst possible explanation for this enormous difference, that's a given. Now you are arguing in circles with some rhetorical question and as always, no matter what the response you just keep asking the question.

Mutations in brain related genes have deleterious effects, that's not my opinion it's a ubiquitous fact. When they have an effect on brain related genes is invariably deleterious.

That's not where I'm going with this. I don't base my opinion on arguments with you. I'm doing some reading on the comparison of this human specific brain related gene and several others. I'm just curious to see how many times you will use the same fallacious circular argument before you realize you have exhausted your very limited knowledge of genetics and try something real.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

What we have here is you have not bothered to learn how the comparison is characterized and what, if any, mutations are likely.

You are ignoring the mutations that actually exist. The chimp-human genome comparison shows us what those mutations are.

That really doesn't matter because mutations are the worst possible explanation for this enormous difference, that's a given.

Why?

Mutations in brain related genes have deleterious effects,

Then how can chimps and humans have differences in those genes and still survive?

 

[mark kennedy]

Answer his question.

You claimed that the mutations needed to get from the chimp version of the SRGAP2 gene to the human version would be deleterious. Where is your evidence?

I made no such claim. I said the mutations in brain related genes with an effect are invariably deleterious. As usual you are erecting a strawman, pretending it's something I'm trying to argue. First of all I haven't really made an argument and the effects of mutations on brain related genes are not a serious question, they are invariably deleterious. Adam wants an example of this, asking for it in circles relentlessly so I provided one:

We report on a female patient with early infantile epileptic encephalopathy and severe psychomotor disability possessing a de novo balanced translocation t(1;9)(q32;q13). The patient showed clonic convulsions of extremities 2 days after birth. Electroencephalogram (EEG) transiently showed atypical suppression-burst pattern. (Early infantile epileptic encephalopathy associated with the disrupted gene encoding Slit-Robo Rho GTPase activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) Am J Med Genet A. 2012)
​

He ignored it, again and again and again...

So then rearrange the question, twist the semanitcs into a tortured mess and spam the question in circles. It shows me you have nothing else which is fine. I'm still doing the background reading and enjoying watching you guys chase your tails.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

I made no such claim.

AdamSK: Right, there is a clear and short sequence of mutations to get from the original SRGAP2 to the several slight variations that humans have, and these collectively contribute to faster and denser neuron development. One of several actual examples we can show of mutations that lead to superior brain in humans.

mark kennedy: Dude these are comparisons, this doesn't demonstrate that the differences are caused by mutations, it assumes they must have. Actual mutations that have an effect are always deleterious:

I said the mutations in brain related genes with an effect are invariably deleterious.

A claim you have yet to back up. Also, you said they are "always" deleterious. Are you now saying that some mutations in brain related genes are beneficial?

First of all I haven't really made an argument and the effects of mutations on brain related genes are not a serious question, they are invariably deleterious.

Back this claim up with evidence, please.

Adam wants an example of this, asking for it in circles relentlessly so I provided one:

He wants an example of the mutations needed to produce the human array of 4 SRGAP2 genes causing disease. Where is that evidence?

We report on a female patient with early infantile epileptic encephalopathy and severe psychomotor disability possessing a de novo balanced translocation t(1;9)(q32;q13). The patient showed clonic convulsions of extremities 2 days after birth. Electroencephalogram (EEG) transiently showed atypical suppression-burst pattern. (Early infantile epileptic encephalopathy associated with the disrupted gene encoding Slit-Robo Rho GTPase activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) Am J Med Genet A. 2012)
​

He ignored it, again and again and again...

Just because one mutation in that gene causes disease does not mean that all of them do.

 

[AdamSK]

Mutations in brain related genes have deleterious effects, that's not my opinion it's a ubiquitous fact.

You have claimed that these particular mutations, if they occurred in chimps, would cause deleterious effects. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actual mutations that have an effect are always deleterious:
.

You can't prove that. You merely assert it, without proof.

It is not enough to find a mutation that had a deleterious effect. The claim from science is most are deleterious but a few are beneficial.

You have to prove, somehow, that a mutation is always deleterious. What you have done is simply take that as an axiom, without bothering to have evidence or proof for your axiom.

 

[mark kennedy]

You can't prove that. You merely assert it, without proof.

I can't help it if you are misinformed but the way it works, when you want to refute someone you have to make an actual argument. We are swimming in evidence of the deleterious effects of mutations on protein coding genes, It's not my fault if you don't bother to learn something about them.

It is not enough to find a mutation that had a deleterious effect. The claim from science is most are deleterious but a few are beneficial.

You guys always say science or evolution when you haven't bothered to acquire source material or anything remotely substantive:

If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift, as Kimura (1983a) has argued. In this case, the proportion of neutral mutations at a site or locus is the ratio of its rate of evolution to that of a region that can be considered neutral, such as a pseudogene. Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious, but the fraction may approach zero for spacer DNAs such as introns and intergenic regions. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics 1998)
​

There are a couple of things you can take from this, normally I wouldn't even tell an evolutionist something like this but you opened up the ERV issue for me so I'll make an exception this time. What I have been seeing since I started reading this stuff is neutral or nearly neutral mutations, this would fit a gradualism to a tee.

You have to prove, somehow, that a mutation is always deleterious. What you have done is simply take that as an axiom, without bothering to have evidence or proof for your axiom.

What these demands for proof do is repeat, regardless of the proof offered. It's a shameless debate tactic intended to run creationists in circles and all of you do it. When I encounter this kind of fallacious rhetoric it's enough to inform me that you have nothing else. It's not a mantra, it's not a clutch phrase and it's not some 'prove it' circular argument. It's what happens when mutations have an effect the vast majority of the time. You are grossly misinformed with nothing to confront me with except a pedantic taunt.

Have a nice day
Mark