Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

mark kennedy · Dec 27, 2009

from:

"Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium.69-87 (1 September 2005)

*link added*

First:

"[/SIZE][/FONT]We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies"
Oh darn, it looks like instead of the merely 29% Mark says we share, we actually share about 98.77% of our genome.... "

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome
On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions
Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.

No we don't share 98.77% of our genome, there are insertions/deletions (indels) which are actually gaps that account for another 3%. Also, only 29% of the orthologous proteins are identical and 20% show gross structural changes

Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins) Nature 429, 382-388 (27 May 2004)

Now here is the quote that was taken out of context:

"Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage."

So mark took a quote about protein similarity, and changed a few words.... hmm.

That quote actually means that 71% show 2 amino acid differences on average. Evolutionists habitually lie about the evidence so you have to go over their work carefully, especially when dealing with homology arguments.

Have a nice day
Mark

Sphinx777 · Dec 27, 2009

Parts Of The Brain

mark kennedy · Dec 27, 2009

Thanks but I can't do Utube on these computers

Sphinx777 · Dec 27, 2009

What do you think of Neurodiversity?

mark kennedy · Dec 30, 2009

I'm not entirely sure Neurodiversity is a comprehensive subject. I think it's nice that autistic kids can get and the internet and communicate but I don't see a lot of relevance beyond that.

Papias · Dec 31, 2009

Isn't it kinda pointless to have this thread in the creationist forum, which is just an echo chamber for those who don't want to discuss the issue from both sides?

It seems that if one really thought this held any merit, they would move it to the general discussion forum (which allows everybody), or at least the origens theology forum, which only allows Christians (but that includes theistic evolution supporters).

Papias

mark kennedy · Jan 4, 2010

Papias said:
Isn't it kinda pointless to have this thread in the creationist forum, which is just an echo chamber for those who don't want to discuss the issue from both sides?

It seems that if one really thought this held any merit, they would move it to the general discussion forum (which allows everybody), or at least the origens theology forum, which only allows Christians (but that includes theistic evolution supporters).

Papias

I have discussed this topic in both creation/evolution discussion forums and had numerous formal debates on the subject. I have debated not only the scientific points from purely scientific sources but the theological issues with one TE in the General Theology/Formal Debate forum. This was intended to be a fellowship forum for Creationists but it has been the haunt of TEs who continually confront Creationists no matter what or where they post.

Trust me when I tell you I'm not hiding in here. I have a standing invitation to any evolutionists, TE or otherwise who is interested in debating the topic formally. So if you feel the need to plumb the depths with a died in the wool YEC you have only to ask.

Have a nice day
Mark

Zebra1552 · Jan 18, 2010

MOD HAT ON

Reminder: Stay on topic. Another reminder: posts that are reported should not be also responded to.

MOD HAT OFF

mark kennedy · Jan 19, 2010

laconicstudent said:
Mmmm 'kay, I think I gotta clear this up, just in case no one else has caught on to the blatant error here. Or it might be a flat out lie.

from:

"Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)

First:

"We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies"

Oh darn, it looks like instead of the merely 29% Mark says we share, we actually share about 98.77% of our genome....

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 4045 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

The paper says otherwise!!!!!

laconicstudent · Jan 19, 2010

mark kennedy said:
On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 4045 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

The paper says otherwise!!!!!

Can you show where the paper says that? I think it is referring to the fact that only 29% of our proteins is identical, not that we only share 29% of our genome.

And by the way, I'd like to apologize mark, my earlier post was unconscionably rude.

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2010

laconicstudent said:
Can you show where the paper says that? I think it is referring to the fact that only 29% of our proteins is identical, not that we only share 29% of our genome.

Amino acid sequences differ by only about 2 amino acids on average. However, at least 20% show gross structural differences in their protein products according to an earlier paper on chromosome 21.

This is a direct quote:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 4045 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies

It's in the section of Indels and they way I usually find it is to search using the word, 'dwarfs'. The section you quoted was talking about, 'orthologous' sequences and represent single base substitutions. Let's say you have two stands of beeds 300 million base pairs long and they are red/green, blue/yellow. Laying them side by side every so often one has a red/green pair where the other has blue/yellow, that's called a single base substitution.

An indel would be an insertions or a deletion of anywhere from a single base pair to over a million. Creationists commonly refer to these as gaps but evolutionists call them indels after the mutation that is assumed to be responsible for the differences.

Just one more thing, it is commonly said that we are 98% the same in our DNA as chimpanzees. That is simply not true. A prime example is the Chimpanzee Genome paper we are talking about. In the announcement of the paper we are talking about it says that but the paper says otherwise. Type 'chimpanzee genome' into your search engine and this will be near the top of the search:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.The chimpanzee genome

That is simply not true. Mind you this does not even count the 8 major chromosomal rearrangements that include at least another 20 million base pairs. It is very important that you check the primary source material when dealing with this subject because no one is truely objective when it comes to the creation/evolution controversy. Especially Darwinians with an agenda.

And by the way, I'd like to apologize mark, my earlier post was unconscionably rude.

I'm not thin skinned, I'm of the opinion you have nothing to apologize for assuming you just didn't know about the indels. I had no problem with your statement, in fact it made me chuckle. When my response was reported and then deleted I was furious. At any rate, think nothing of it, happens in here all the time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Dec 29, 2010

Just bumping the thread to make finding it easier

mark kennedy · Sep 8, 2014

Bumping it again, just curious if there is interest in the subject matter

GratiaCorpusChristi · Sep 8, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Bumping it again, just curious if there is interest in the subject matter

Why is the human brain a problem for "Darwinism," again?

Radagast · Sep 9, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Bumping it again, just curious if there is interest in the subject matter

What's with all the thread necromancy on CF just recently?

mark kennedy · Sep 9, 2014

Radagast said:
What's with all the thread necromancy on CF just recently?

I don't know about other forums but the Creation/Evolution thing is fading away. A couple of years ago a thread like this incited a mob scene, now it just gets a passing quip. Guess I'm going to have to find another pass time.

mark kennedy · Sep 9, 2014

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Why is the human brain a problem for "Darwinism," again?

Basically:

“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.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

You get a lot of arguments about beneficial mutations in bacteria and weeds but it seems pretty important to account for the requisite changes in the human brain from that of apes.

I'm simply suggesting an organ that could not possible have adapted from random mutations, due to the deleterious effects . Baring a molecular mechanism that can be identified as an instrumental cause it's a viable null hypothesis. Every theory is supposed to have one, except for Darwinism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Sep 9, 2014

Skaloop said:
How does make the brain the null hypothesis? It's not even a hypothesis.

This is Charles Darwin's null hypothesis for natural selection:

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. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

The human brain is almost three times bigger and almost twice as dense as the Chimpanzee. The genetic basis for this difference must be quantified or you are into propositional logic, which isn't science, it's metaphysics. At a minimum there has to be a cause and effect relationship clearly established.

Mutations is a wrong answer, mutations in brain related genes cause disease, disorder and death. Death is a lousy causal mechanism and Darwinian natural selection is nothing more then the death of the less fit.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Gottservant · Sep 9, 2014

I understand what he is saying, why aren't you being constructive?

Skaloop · Sep 9, 2014

Gottservant said:
I understand what he is saying, why aren't you being constructive?

You talkin' to me?

I am trying to be constructive, by ascertaining what he means by "null hypothesis" in this context. Because what he's saying does not align with the standard definition of "null hypothesis".

Is the Human Brain the Null Hypothesis for Darwin's Theory?

Does the Human Brain Represent a Null Hypothesis for Darwinism

Yes, there is neither the time nor means

No, the genetic mechanism and time frame is sufficient

I don't know

Other options (elaborate at will)

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Listening to TW4

Natura non facit saltum

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

comes and goes

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

God loves your words, may men love them also

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency