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

[mark kennedy]

Why should he assume that all genetic variations represent "mutations?"

Absolutely not, in fact I get irritated with the word because I believe there are mechanisms that create new alleles (variations of the genes). I suspect it's some kind of an RNA strand or something but there is definitely something.

How do we know that any of these expressions were not found in Adam OR Eve or the sons of Noah or their wives? I am not sure how many genes you are talking about.

In the HAR (Human Accelerated Regions) they found 210 showing signs of major divergence. I really don't know how many brain related, protein coding and regulatory, genes would be involved but the simple answer is a lot.

In order to focus on human-specific changes that have functional importance, we first identified a set of genomic regions which are at least 100 bp in length and identical between chimp (P. troglodytes), mouse (Mus musculus), and rat (Rattus norvegicus) in at least 96% of alignment columns...Bioinformatic analysis of the 34,498 predicted functional elements shows that they are very similar to previously described highly conserved elements in the human genome. Only 19.6% overlap coding regions of human genes, while the remaining non-coding regions are mostly intergenic (45.4%) and intronic (31.0%)...
Forces Shaping the Fastest Evolving Regions in the Human Genome​

By way of analogy, you can get a camry with four cyl. or six. In the factory of meiosis, things are created that are not "mutations", but are a different options packages.

Right, the genes cross over from the diploid chromosomes, one set from each parent. Obviously, that's not a mutation, traits being inherited in this way can even adapt to new environments but mutations are not required. I know certain genes can be turned off and on, I'm not really sure how that works exactly but I know it happens.

Crossing-over also occurs during meiosis I. Crossing over is an exchange of genetic material by non-sister chromatids of a homologous pair of chromosomes. This exchange of genetic material is the basis for additional variation in the offspring (another being the recombination of genetic material from two different genetic sources, the parents). This can lead to better adaptations and hence is a part of the process of evolution. Meiosis​

How do we know that the information that is optional did not reside in our ancestors and is not carried? That is a question, not a rhetorical question, since I don't know the answer.

A lot of times the scientists who research this sort of thing don't know. Here is an interesting example.

The finding grew out of a research project started three years ago in which Dr. Pruitt and Dr. Lolle were trying to understand the genes that control the plant's outer skin, or cuticle. As part of the project, they were studying plants with a mutated gene that made the plant's petals and other floral organs clump together. Because each of the plant's two copies of the gene were in mutated form, they had virtually no chance of having normal offspring.

But up to 10 percent of the plants' offspring kept reverting to normal. Various rare events can make this happen, but none involve altering the actual sequence of DNA units in the gene. Yet when the researchers analyzed the mutated gene, known as hothead, they found it had changed, with the mutated DNA units being changed back to normal form.
Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene​

And Mark, what is the latest on where such information would be stored. One thing that research seems to show is that our simplistic notion of what the genetic code is seems to have a less defined boundary that was taught 20 years ago. Does the fact that you don't see the information in the strands of the 46 base pairs mean that the information isn't otherwise there? Remember that geneticists must rely upon notions like "self organizing", which implies that the information is present somewhere that we have no idea about.

The article above suggest the RNA may have had a copy somewhere:

Dr. Pruitt said he favored the idea that there is an RNA backup copy for the entire genome, not just the hothead gene, and that it might be set in motion when the plant was under stress, as is the case with those having mutated hothead genes.

He and other experts said it was possible that an entire RNA backup copy of the genome could exist without being detected, especially since there has been no reason until now to look for it.​

I kind of like this idea since they are finding out that the RNA is coming from all kinds of places that were previously thought to be junk DNA:

TANGLED GENES. In the classic view of the genome (top), individual genes were distinct segments of DNA that a cell transcribed into RNA whole and in one direction. New data show that multiple and overlapping genes can occupy a single strip of DNA that also produces several functional RNAs that don't encode proteins

The results from ENCODE were even more striking. In the slice of DNA studied in that project, between 74 percent and 93 percent of the genome produced RNA transcripts. What becomes of this tremendous output is uncertain. John M. Greally of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York says it's likely that some portion of it is made accidentally and simply discarded. But the discovery that so much of the genome is being transcribed into RNA underscores how out-of-date the central dogma has become.
Mountains of new data are challenging old views​

 

[shernren]

Out of curiosity, are you honestly going to say that "the academic and scientific community is simply pushing prejudicial bias on the subject" based on your experience at ... 7-7-7, CARM, CF.com, and CvE? I don't think I need to spell out the disparity between the claim you are making and the evidence you are using to back it up.

Have you really interacted with many biological scientists with the questions you are unsure about? I will readily agree with you that there are irrational atheists aplenty on Internet discussion boards. I'm sure a case can be made that the very demographic likely to spend most of their time on Internet forums is the demographic most likely to host angry immature anti-religionists. But have you ever talked to science people? Or do you assume that they cannot be talked to?

Because such prophecies are self-fulfilling, you know; and to be quite frank, I think sfs has been far more reasonable with you than you have ever been with any evolutionist I saw you talk with here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Out of curiosity, are you honestly going to say that "the academic and scientific community is simply pushing prejudicial bias on the subject" based on your experience at ... 7-7-7, CARM, CF.com, and CvE? I don't think I need to spell out the disparity between the claim you are making and the evidence you are using to back it up.

I'm not playing this game with you anymore, everyone of you talks to creationists like they are fools. I've backed up what I have said with relevant, current scientific literature and you continue to consume the substance of the discussion with incessant ad hominem attacks. TEs are the worst and I consider it little more then another form of Liberal Theology that seeks to supplant traditional Christian theology with a secular philosophy.

I'm in a kind of transition right now but I'm changing my approach from evidential apologetics to the Calvinist presuppositional approach I am convinced is the only viable approach. I won't be derailed by these theatrics anymore,

Have you really interacted with many biological scientists with the questions you are unsure about? I will readily agree with you that there are irrational atheists aplenty on Internet discussion boards. I'm sure a case can be made that the very demographic likely to spend most of their time on Internet forums is the demographic most likely to host angry immature anti-religionists. But have you ever talked to science people? Or do you assume that they cannot be talked to?

They argue in circles around two central assumptions, the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the incredulity of creationists. It is unbending and colors ever reaction to creationism I have encountered. I talk to these scientific and academic professionals on a regular basis and they simply don't have any rules of ethics or civility when it comes to attacking creationists. The fallacious nature of their arguments makes engaging them on the issues is tantamount to playing the fool in a mock opera.

Because such prophecies are self-fulfilling, you know; and to be quite frank, I think sfs has been far more reasonable with you than you have ever been with any evolutionist I saw you talk with here.

I happened to like sfs very much and I was thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to him. He was one of the few I considered reasonable and genuinely concerned with raising the level of discussion. You him and the others went on for five pages in a previous discussion ranting about how a transcript error is not a mutation. I clearly demonstrated that an uncorrected transcript error was a mutation and I am convinced that all you intended to do was to contradict me.

It happened again on CARM only it was the opening line from the Kimball Biology pages discussion of mutations. I paraphrased the opening line and when I showed them both the credentials and context of the statement they refused to soften their unbridled criticism of the statement.

Frankly I am appalled that these debates and discussions are joined by academic and scientific professional who encourage this. I was patient and as studious and thorough and I was capable of. I often invited the more serious debaters to formal debates and when they demonstrated the courage of their convictions they won my respect. You on the other hand refused even in an open invitation to a formal debate made by you.

I have decided on another approach simply because it has became impossible to reach creationists and expose the evolutionist's fallacious debate tactics when they flood every thread with insults and mockery. It may come to nothing but I will no longer aid these mob scene debates in making a spectacle of a Christian view of origins. You guys have lost your credibility with me and now I'm going after your false assumptions, straight up, flat out.

7-7-7 sealed my opinion of CF and the pretense that this is supposed to be a fellowship forum has become evident and obvious. One thing is sure, the evidential approach is worse then useless when dealing with the rhetorical theatrics of evolutionists on this topic.

Think what you like but I am through playing this game with you. You don't like my take on the evidence? Ok fine but you are really going to hate presuppositional apologetics and it's coming buddy, rest assured.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

I will limit my replies to what I hope will build friendship between me and the creationists who hang around here.

I'm not playing this game with you anymore, everyone of you talks to creationists like they are fools. I've backed up what I have said with relevant, current scientific literature and you continue to consume the substance of the discussion with incessant ad hominem attacks. TEs are the worst and I consider it little more then another form of Liberal Theology that seeks to supplant traditional Christian theology with a secular philosophy.

They argue in circles around two central assumptions, the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the incredulity of creationists. It is unbending and colors ever reaction to creationism I have encountered. I talk to these scientific and academic professionals on a regular basis and they simply don't have any rules of ethics or civility when it comes to attacking creationists. The fallacious nature of their arguments makes engaging them on the issues is tantamount to playing the fool in a mock opera.

Honestly, mark. I really wish we were talking face to face so that you could look me in the eye and tell me:

1. that I am a liberal theologian or subscribe unquestioningly to liberal theology;
2. that I presume that all creationists are incredulous and treat them all as fools without second thought.

To the first, I stand by what I have said before, but which you seem to conveniently ignore every time I try to disagree with you on something:

As I have said before and will say again, I believe that I am inherently sinful as a human, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that His atoning sacrifice avails for the propitiation of my transgressions before God's righteous judgment because He has imputed His righteousness to me. What more can you ask from a Christian?

Of course I am affirming the historicity of an enormous number of miracles mark, it's about time you agreed with me about that! But I believe that every miracle the Bible bears witness to left behind substantial, impartially detectable physical evidence which would not have existed if the miracle had not happened (even though in most cases that physical evidence is of too small magnitude to detect today by conventional historical methods). In plain terms, if Richard Dawkins had been by the tomb come Easter Sunday and looked inside he would still have seen it empty, however he chose to explain it afterwards. I'm sure you can agree with me on that.

Do those sound like the statements of a liberal theologian, mark? Of course I read liberal theology and I try to appropriate whatever I find Biblical and helpful, knowing full well that in many cases liberal theology is neither.

As for the second - just show me where I have treated you as a fool. Just show me where I have assumed that you don't know what you're talking about. To be entirely fair I will ask you (and any other creationist, and any other evolutionist) if you know what you're talking about ... but only if prior conversation shows it. Take for example my recent conversation with mindlight on dark matter over at the main forum. Did I treat him as a fool?

I mean ... what do you want to know about dark matter and dark energy? Ask away. You might be surprised at what we know.

Is this how you would talk to someone you assumed was a fool, mark?

I hope you won't be offended by my modest suggestion that perhaps, mark, if there are inherent presuppositions that the other side is not going to be reasonable ... they aren't coming from us.

You on the other hand refused even in an open invitation to a formal debate made by you.

I can't believe you're still harping on this, mark. I believe I was entirely within my rights to withdraw an invitation to debate that, after all, I had initiated. I just happened to think that there were more important things for me to do at that time than debating an ill-formed motion with an opponent possessing both your caliber and your vitriol. Like living real life. Will you please stop confusing that for intellectual cowardice?

You guys have lost your credibility with me and now I'm going after your false assumptions, straight up, flat out.

I really wonder which of my "false assumptions" you're going to go for, mark. That the Bible is divinely inspired? That miracles did and do really occur? That Jesus Christ was God incarnate who was born of a virgin, crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead? Oh, please tell me which of the five points of TULIP I am erroneous in believing.

What would make you think that

you are really going to hate presuppositional apologetics

mark? Apologetics is for convincing non-believers, remember? Talking apologetics to me is like trying to convert your pastor: it's fun and I don't see why your pastor would get offended unless you actually thought he needed conversion. I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

 

[mark kennedy]

I will limit my replies to what I hope will build friendship between me and the creationists who hang around here.

Yea right.

Honestly, mark. I really wish we were talking face to face so that you could look me in the eye and tell me:

1. that I am a liberal theologian or subscribe unquestioningly to liberal theology;

You express nothing but a secular philosophy that is overtly hostile to Christian theism. If we were eye to eye you would hear a lot more about the heretical nature of dialectical humanism. So tell me, you still a big fan of Tillich?

2. that I presume that all creationists are incredulous and treat them all as fools without second thought.

You say that like you ever gave to slightest indication to the contrary. Honestly I don't think you have the slightest interest in a fellowship post, you just candy coat you venom with the phrase.

To the first, I stand by what I have said before, but which you seem to conveniently ignore every time I try to disagree with you on something:

That's supernatural is it not? As a matter of fact I don't ignore it but I pressed you on it repeatedly and you finally said, 'yea, I believe it so what'. Paul Tillich said he believed in God but it was just an abstraction, I don't doubt that you are doing something similar.

Do those sound like the statements of a liberal theologian, mark? Of course I read liberal theology and I try to appropriate whatever I find Biblical and helpful, knowing full well that in many cases liberal theology is neither.

Yea actually it does otherwise we would be talking about the historicity of Scripture rather then talking around it. Theistic evolution is just another version of Liberal Theology, apparently the religion is appealing but the convictions are negotiable to secularists.

As for the second - just show me where I have treated you as a fool. Just show me where I have assumed that you don't know what you're talking about. To be entirely fair I will ask you (and any other creationist, and any other evolutionist) if you know what you're talking about ... but only if prior conversation shows it. Take for example my recent conversation with mindlight on dark matter over at the main forum. Did I treat him as a fool?

I'm sure you corrected him constantly, that's what you always do, that's what you are doing now. It's in every post and didn't you notice that creationists were actually plentiful on here for a short time. Then you guys invade and they just fade away. You wonder why?

Maybe it had something to do with the over abundance of 'fellowship posts' drenched in secular venom.

Is this how you would talk to someone you assumed was a fool, mark?

Yea, they would just constantly correct me and continually break it down to kindergarten level.

I hope you won't be offended by my modest suggestion that perhaps, mark, if there are inherent presuppositions that the other side is not going to be reasonable ... they aren't coming from us.

Right, like you don't nurse, propagate and pontificate a priori naturalistic assumptions regarding common descent. I'm not offended and it's not modest to insist that it is incredulity (ignorance) not to accept universal common descent unconditionally.

I can't believe you're still harping on this, mark. I believe I was entirely within my rights to withdraw an invitation to debate that, after all, I had initiated. I just happened to think that there were more important things for me to do at that time than debating an ill-formed motion with an opponent possessing both your caliber and your vitriol. Like living real life. Will you please stop confusing that for intellectual cowardice?

It was a scornful taunt you don't expect anyone to take you up on. Heliocentric astronomy has never been a Biblical issue except to Medieval Aristotelian clerics. Darwin has become the modern Aristotle and that represents the modern heliocentricism. It's rather odd that you never tire of responding to my posts but for whatever reason lack the vitriol to deal with me formally. It couldn't be because it's harder to draw a crowd that way.

I really wonder which of my "false assumptions" you're going to go for, mark. That the Bible is divinely inspired? That miracles did and do really occur? That Jesus Christ was God incarnate who was born of a virgin, crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead? Oh, please tell me which of the five points of TULIP I am erroneous in believing.

I think your just spoon feeding me what you think I want to hear, that's what I think. You have no problem believing the God took on human nature and you see no way he could have specially created man from the dust, I don't get it. Theology is not a rule book, it's a conviction that people are born in sin and cannot escape by their own efforts.

What would make you think that

yea you are just going to keep running it in circles, somehow I'm not supprised.

mark? Apologetics is for convincing non-believers, remember?

No it's not, it's a legal defense in court against accusations. The term just came to mean a defense of the faith and the view has always been on ministering to the Church, not to persuade the proud scoffer.

Talking apologetics to me is like trying to convert your pastor: it's fun and I don't see why your pastor would get offended unless you actually thought he needed conversion. I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

I have read Van Til but he is not the only Presuppositional Apologist out there, try Therefore Stand by Wilbur Smith sometime. Of course you missed my point entirely, the evidential approach is utterly worthless. I don't go around defending the historicity of Scripture to believers, or unbelievers for that matter. It seems to me that after 20 years of having an active interest and nearly incessant appetite for Christian Apologetics that I wouldn't really need any advice on where to start.

Now you want to condescend to me about Christian apologetic, that's a hoot.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I really don't know where you're going to learn your presuppositional apologetics from, though; you'd have to start with Cornelius Van Til, but I can't foresee you being friendly with the man who conceived the framework hypothesis ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Goodness me, that's got to be one of the funniest things I've seen in ages. Good call!!

 

[Melethiel]

Honestly shernren, it's not worth it. We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints. The time could be better spent worshiping God and going about doing His work than arguing with those who hate us.

 

[busterdog]

those who hate us.

reprove, not hate

 

[mark kennedy]

Honestly shernren, it's not worth it. We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints. The time could be better spent worshiping God and going about doing His work than arguing with those who hate us.

Dear I don't hate you and certainly don't hate shernen <staff edit>. I don't hate or despise Buddhists for being Buddhists and consider their religion comparable with Christianity but core convictions are not forthcoming. You may well be Christians after a fashion but when you convictions lead you to simply hurl insults and criticisms at other professing Christians I'm thinking your philosophy is all you care about, not the primacy of the faith.

Only once have I heard the gospel from a TE, that just doesn't cut it with me. As far as I can tell TE is devoid of theology and at best you are being used by secular materialists and atheists to attack a literal interpretation of Scripture and when they are satisfied they have effectively neutralized creationism and the many forms of fundamentalist theology your next.

I hope you like your friends because they don't have any more regard for your religion then they have for mine. Theism is the target, not creationism.

Obviously you have lost all regard for creationists as Christians and that's on you. My personal opinion is that the Life Sciences have nothing to do natural history and they know it, their aim is cultural not scientific. So they encourage TEs to continue their full court press of creationism but it won't end there. TE is secular humanism, nothing more. I don't hate people for their sincere convictions but I reserve the right to regard only what I can recognized as proceeding from Christian conviction and to reject what I consider a philosophy simply put in theological terminology.

Such a philosophy is TE and while I do not hate it I do not now, nor have I ever regarded it as Christian. It is nothing more then a contentious and divisive secular philosophy and if it's not then it's something worse.

 

[mark kennedy]

reprove, not hate

I don't hate anyone, this is an intellectual exercise for me. I feel like they have been taken in by a subtle and venomous philosophy and it's going to cost them in the long run. My convictions are not threatened, I know what I believe and why I believe it. Right now I'm just reading up on the subject and enjoying learning about the Life Sciences without the dry drama.

I don't hate them at all, I don't even dislike them. I simply get nothing out of discussing these things with them anymore, not sure I ever did.

 

[Melethiel]

Dear I don't hate you and certainly don't hate shernen <staff edit>. I don't hate or despise Buddhists for being Buddhists and consider their religion comparable with Christianity but core convictions are not forthcoming. You may well be Christians after a fashion but when you convictions lead you to simply hurl insults and criticisms at other professing Christians I'm thinking your philosophy is all you care about, not the primacy of the faith.

Only once have I heard the gospel from a TE, that just doesn't cut it with me. As far as I can tell TE is devoid of theology and at best you are being used by secular materialists and atheists to attack a literal interpretation of Scripture and when they are satisfied they have effectively neutralized creationism and the many forms of fundamentalist theology your next.

I hope you like your friends because they don't have any more regard for your religion then they have for mine. Theism is the target, not creationism.

Obviously you have lost all regard for creationists as Christians and that's on you. My personal opinion is that the Life Sciences have nothing to do natural history and they know it, their aim is cultural not scientific. So they encourage TEs to continue their full court press of creationism but it won't end there. TE is secular humanism, nothing more. I don't hate people for their sincere convictions but I reserve the right to regard only what I can recognized as proceeding from Christian conviction and to reject what I consider a philosophy simply put in theological terminology.

Such a philosophy is TE and while I do not hate it I do not now, nor have I ever regarded it as Christian. It is nothing more then a contentious and divisive secular philosophy and if it's not then it's something worse.

We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints.

As I said.

Just for the record, to any lurkers, I currently attend a WELS church - one of the most traditional Lutheran branches - which is actually officially YEC. I left my previous church when it got too liberal for me to stomach. The theology books on my shelf are mainly meditations, confessional documents, ecclesial, incarnational, and sacramental theology. The whole origins debate is, for me at least, mainly an intellectual exercise.

As for mark's claim that he "has never heard the Gospel from a TE", I will make this one statement. I have never heard the Gospel from mark - and I'm not speaking of any fluffy liberal "Gospel" either. I have, however, heard plenty about monkeys and genes. When I have slightly more time, however (unfortunately, medical school sucks up a lot of free time), I can link to plenty of posts I and other TEs have made in the main Origins forum which pretty clearly delineate the Gospel.

Pots, kettles, and all that.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I said.

Just for the record, to any lurkers, I currently attend a WELS church - one of the most traditional Lutheran branches - which is actually officially YEC. I left my previous church when it got too liberal for me to stomach. The theology books on my shelf are mainly meditations, confessional documents, ecclesial, incarnational, and sacramental theology. The whole origins debate is, for me at least, mainly an intellectual exercise.

As for mark's claim that he "has never heard the Gospel from a TE", I will make this one statement. I have never heard the Gospel from mark - and I'm not speaking of any fluffy liberal "Gospel" either. I have, however, heard plenty about monkeys and genes. When I have slightly more time, however (unfortunately, medical school sucks up a lot of free time), I can link to plenty of posts I and other TEs have made in the main Origins forum which pretty clearly delineate the Gospel.

Pots, kettles, and all that.

Notice two things lurkers, the response is in the third person and what she means by 'Gospel' remains nebulous. Specifically you are a sinner in need of a Savior due to a sin we are all guilty before God because of one man, namely Adam. I have debated and discussed this at length specifically focusing on Paul's exposition of the Gospel in the book of Romans and Melethiel is well aware of this or maybe she is unaware that I posted a discussion of sin at the opening of Creation Science Resources. Perhaps she thinks that you can look at yourself in the mirror, wave and say 'hi, I'm a Christian', without ever coming under conviction for sin.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.(Romans 1:16)​

Paul goes on for two chapters describing universal sin and the utter depravity and directly links it to a rejection of God's natural revelation:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:21-23)​

Paul is not preaching some politically correct social gospel, he is saying that we have rejected God in our understanding and attributed to creatures what is rightfully attributed to God alone. Sin is not just offenses committed but essentially sin is a lack of God's righteousness and a rejection of revelation in nature where God's glory is reflected and the conscience bearing witness against us.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)​

That's foundational to the Gospel, the fact that we all in word, deed and by our very nature unrighteous and willfully ignorant of God's righteousness. He will again elaborate on the Gospel in Genesis, speaking plainly on grace through faith being the only vehicle by which God's righteousness can be imputed. In chapter 5 he directly ties original sin to Adam who he specifically named.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. (Romans 1:15)​

The New Testament clearly indicates that Adam was the first man which is why Luke refers to him as 'son of god', because he had no human parents. This inextricably links the Gospel to Genesis and the historical narrative of Adam and Eve in Eden. I rarely discuss the Scriptures with unbelievers because of they scoff at a literal reading and uniformly resort to pedantic satire and ad hominem attacks, effectively trampling the Gospel under their feet.

You never heard the Gospel from me? I'm an evangelical which means I affirm the totality of Scripture as being the redemptive history of God in human affairs. Christ in the incarnation redeemed us from the sin of Adam through his substitutionary death on the cross and on the third day was raised through the glory of God. That power is available to us to crucify the old nature and walk as new creatures in Christ which is a miraculous interpolation not unlike the creation of life on this planet elaborated on by Moses in Genesis 1.

How long have you been arguing so strenuously against creationism that you don't realize that it comes from New Testament conviction? You embrace this atheistic a priori assumption of universal common decent that must never allow supernatural events as being historically verifiable. That is why I have rejected TE as a secular philosophy that neither accepts nor affirms traditional Christian theism.

Instead of addressing me directly you simply address the audience in a theater designed to make sport of creationists. Creationists were offered a theology specific discussion forum until there was enough of them on here to release the inflammatory rhetoric of Darwinian metaphysics.

You may consider that Christian, I do not.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apparently while the TEs do not have the vigor to respond to me in a theology specific discussion forum they have turned into a flame gallery they have no qualms about reporting posts that question their Christian conviction. Since it is impossible to have a discussion with creationists without invading TEs heaping their unmitigated scorn the creation forum would appear to have been destroyed by them.

Congratulations, you have ruined any chance of having an open discussion with creationists. I suggest the moderators appeal to the ultimate decision maker and call this forum what it really is, a Darwinian shooting gallery. The rules prohibit me from telling TEs what I really think of them so I'll just say goodbye to this secular philosophy and the shameless proponents who have ran this forum into the ground.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Just a quick bump to see if any interest in the subject remains

 

[busterdog]

Just a quick bump to see if any interest in the subject remains

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

“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)​

Flip side of the IC debate?

I was thinking about this thread while we were talking about irreducible complexity. It is a tough climb from ape cranium to human.

 

[mark kennedy]

Bumping the thread again in the hopes of reaching creationist lurkers looking for substantive source material. I'm probably going to start a new one soon but having trouble finding the time.

 

[Darkness27]

I haven't read the thread, but seems like you are wondering if the human brain could arise naturally, if so might I suggest that you take the topic to the life science section where you get everything from YECs to atheists to Buddhists. Especially since this section of the forums is somewhat dead.

 

[Sphinx777]

The human brain is the center of the human nervous system and is a highly complex organ. Enclosed in the cranium, it has the same general structure as the brains of other mammals, but is over three times as large as the brain of a mammal with an equivalent body size. Most of the expansion comes from the cerebral cortex, a convoluted layer of neural tissue that covers the surface of the forebrain. Especially expanded are the frontal lobes, which are involved in executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought. The portion of the brain devoted to vision is also greatly enlarged in human beings.

Brain evolution, from the earliest shrewlike mammals through primates to hominids, is marked by a steady increase in encephalization, or the ratio of brain to body size. The human brain has been estimated to contain 50–100 billion neurons, of which about 10 billion are cortical pyramidal cells. These cells pass signals to each other via approximately 100 trillion synaptic connections.

In spite of the fact that it is protected by the thick bones of the skull, suspended in cerebrospinal fluid, and isolated from the bloodstream by the blood-brain barrier, the delicate nature of the human brain makes it susceptible to many types of damage and disease. The most common forms of physical damage are closed head injuries such as a blow to the head, a stroke, or poisoning by a wide variety of chemicals that can act as neurotoxins. Infection of the brain is rare because of the barriers that protect it, but is very serious when it occurs. More common are genetically based diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and many others. A number of psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and depression, are widely thought to be caused at least partially by brain dysfunctions, although the nature of such brain anomalies is not well understood.

 

[Ave Maria]

I have no idea.

 

[laconicstudent]

Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same.

Mmmm 'kay, I think I gotta clear this up, just in case no one else has caught on to the error here.

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....



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.