Win a debate against evolution every time.

[jilfe]

God went to great lengths, to protect His people from getting caught in the trap of 'theistic revolution', He used the underlined phrase repetitiosly so no one would mess it up.

Gen:1:11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen:1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen:1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen:1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen:1:25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Then after the supernatural creation activity, God again used the same repetitios phrase to instruct Noah.

Gen:6:20: Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen:7:14: They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

The evidence that God makes so plain and easy for all to see, that they can read it for themselves, and not need any theologin, or any specialist in the science field to interpret for them, GOD SPELLED IT ALL OUT, so no one has an excuse to misunderstand it.

Thank God He shows us that mercy.

 

[KhaosTheory]

God went to great lengths, to protect His people from getting caught in the trap of 'theistic revolution', He used the underlined phrase repetitiosly so no one would mess it up.

Gen:1:11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen:1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen:1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen:1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen:1:25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Then after the supernatural creation activity, God again used the same repetitios phrase to instruct Noah.

Gen:6:20: Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen:7:14: They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

The evidence that God makes so plain and easy for all to see, that they can read it for themselves, and not need any theologin, or any specialist in the science field to interpret for them, GOD SPELLED IT ALL OUT, so no one has an excuse to misunderstand it.

Thank God He shows us that mercy.

Everything does produce after it's kind just like the Bible says. No one is arguing that.

What you NEVER see is something producing something OTHER than it's kind like what creationists think:

Mammals produce mammals, vertebrates produce vertebrates, eukaryotes produce eukaryotes with NO exceptions just like the Bible says.

It's creationists who think that evolution means something morphing Pokemon-style into something completely different.

 

[KhaosTheory]

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to supernatural, biblical, literal 6 day creation. Are you such a claimant?

No, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim... whatever it is.

You are claiming that it is physically impossible for genetic mutations compounded over time through inherited traits to be responsible for the diversity of life we observe on this planet.

Indeed, it seem you are even denying that mutations are inheritable at all.

So therefore I ask you: what proof brings you to this conclusion?

 

[samaus12345]

The onus of proof is on neodarwinian myth/delusion/hypothesis.

Are you representing it y/n?

 

[KhaosTheory]

The onus of proof is on neodarwinian myth/delusion/hypothesis.

Are you representing it y/n?

11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[samaus12345]

The onus of proof is on neodarwinian myth/delusion/hypothesis.

Are you representing it y/n?

 

[KhaosTheory]

The onus of proof is on neodarwinian myth/delusion/hypothesis.

Are you representing it y/n?

My Official Response

 

[Metal Minister]

No bird ever became a dinosaur but dinosaurs did become birds.

The creationist definition of "transitional fossil" requires them to be half one thing and half the other (even though that is a silly definition) Well, we've found exactly that in this case.

This is a "half dinosaur, half bird."

Origin and Evolution of Birds

.

Sorry to burst your bubble Khaos:

http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[KhaosTheory]

Sorry to burst your bubble Khaos:

"Archaeopteryx lithographica: The Ultimate Fraud"

May God Richly Bless You! MM

And this proves what exactly? You didn't even read that article did you... You looked at the title and figured you'd copy/paste it, right?

 

[Metal Minister]

And this proves what exactly? You didn't even read that article did you... You looked at the title and figured you'd copy/paste it, right?

No, obviously YOU did not read the article. It shows that even Huxley regarded the fossils as complete hoaxes. Please try to pay attention and read the whole thing...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[good brother]

Then what's the limit? DNA can mutate and adapt into new features and organs. We've observed entirely new organs being formed from DNA mutation.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

So what's this limit you speak of?

I know I am way late to the party and pages upon pages have been discussed since the above was posted, but I felt as though I HAD to point this out.

This is an excerpt from the article that was posted by Khaos.

"Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste." (emphasis mine)

​

Did anyone notice that? These evolutionists claim that the lizards were demonstrating evolution and yet they (the lizards) were STILL GENETICALLY IDENTICAL to the original group! These other lizards show some different features than their genetically identical ancestors, but they are still genetically the same. There was no gaining of information. THere was no speciation. Though the lizards "appeared" different, they were still the genetically identical twins of the old ones.

No new genetic information was added. There was a difference in appearance, but they were genetically still the same.


In Christ, GB

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

This is the same altered list that mark cuts and pastes, even though he knows he has removed the transitional skulls.

Notice, Papias attacks the poster rather then the substance of the post. Does that indicate acceptable Christian behavior? Instead of dealing with the argument he fabricates an ad hominem personal attack like he has done his entire time on these boards.

​

mark, that post directly address the argument - by showing that it is an altered list with evidence hidden from view, and is further a PRATT. That's exactly what "addressing the argument" is. You, on the other hand, use so many ad hominen attacks that it was trivially easy for metherion to list dozens of them from a single thread. You are again projecting (seeing your own behavior in others), and as you know, I'm not the only one who has pointed out that you are projecting by accusing others of your own ad hominen behavior.

What mark is selectively not telling you is that there is a range (in fact, a usually overlapping range) to each of these.

Now for the spam attack, he just posts a couple of links and other such nonsense hoping you will chase it all down.

I'm not asking anyone to chase anything down. The graph makes it easy to see:

It's about as gradual as you can get - in fact, the ranges often even overlap:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of 380-430 cc lived about 3.5 mya.
(about the same as modern chimps)
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of 420-500 cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 500-545cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.

at this point, mark again omits data to make his point look better. Hey, that "whole truth" line is just a suggestion, right?

H. habilis with a cranial capacity of 510-680 cc lived about 2.3 to 1.7 mya.
H. georgicus with a cranial capacity of 600-780 cc lived about 1.8 mya.

H. Erectus with a cranial capacity of 850-1200cc lived about 1.8 mya.

Ancient H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1150-1280cc lived about 0.5 to 0.2 mya.

H. Sapiens with a cranial capacity of 1200-1800cc live today, and post on this board.

Well, that is an improvement over the scattergram you shamelessly spammed for so long.

Why do you consider the posting of actual data to be shameful? It looks like you have an aversion to actual data.

The Homo erectus skulls that are complete are comparable with modern humans.

No fossil skulls are perfectly complete (so don't try to use "incompletness" as an excuse), and of the homo erectus skulls we have show plenty of examples outside the normal human range. If you are trying to imply the homo erectus is not clearly different from modern humans, then you have again posted a falsehood.



​

So, mark, please inform me where the large gap is? Look again at the graph. Is it at 500 cc? 600 cc? 700 cc? Hint - draw horizontal lines on the graph - a gap is where you can go a long ways (say, 200 cc) vertically without points between the horizontal lines.

No I'm not chasing your scattergram plots around the mulberry bush.

I'm not asking to do anything with a mulberry bush - just to look at actual data.

There are two direct references to actual fossils:

KNM-ER 1470

​

In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy Homo rudolfensis
​

Why did you cut off your cut and paste immediately before it said - in your own reference - that the best and most recent crainial capacity is at about 700 cm³, right in the middle of your fabricated gap? Did you hope everyone would miss that?

KNM-ER 3733

​

H. erectus 1.64-1.88 848 Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus"[1]) is an extinct chronospecies of Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago
​

That's about it,

Another example right in the middle of your fabricated gap (848 is outside the normal human range). And you can see from the gap there are plenty more (for instance,there are homo habilis skulls inside your fabricated gap as well). If you really wanted to learn about them, you could go and get a degree in this area, or even ask an expert familiar with them. You can see from the evidence presented that there are more than just two (again you have posted a falsehood), and even if it were just those two, your fabricated gap would still be shown to be false.

they are the among the few hominid fossils that all within the range of human cranial capacity.

False. 700 and 850 are not in the normal range of 90% of humans.


For a substantive list of the fossils involved try this link:


Cranial Capacities and Dates for Selected Fossil Specimens


mark, do you not understand what "selected" means? It means that it is an incomplete list - because a full list of all the dozens of transitional ape-human fossils would be very long. Plus, as you can see yourself, that's an old list, from 1997.

When you are ready to calculate mutation rates I'll break out on my calculator. In the mean time why don't you try wrapping your mind around the fact that only two substitutions were allowed due to functional constraint for 310 million years and then, about 2 million years ago or less, 18 substitutions are made.

Reference? Secondly - changing selective pressures are expected to change the rate at which mutations are retained. Thirdly, and most importantly, that's a red herring anyway, since your claim was that the 1 mutation in 100,000 years was somehow too fast, when simple division shows that it's very much a reasonable rate.

That's the question you and all evolutionists don't want to answer, if things in common indicate common ancestry do differences indicate independent lineage due to special creation? In other words, is the inverse logic intuitively obvious? Because if not, it's an a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes.

If you understood genetics, you would understand that the commonalities are nested and too long to be due to chance, while the differences fit well with random mutation.


​

As posted before (even on this thread), it has been explained to mark that the increase in brain size is not a mystery, and some of the genes responsible have been identified. The video below is by someone who actually understands genetics, has looked at the evidence, and explains it. You can see starting at 2:40 that the evolution of a human brain from a chimp-like brain is not at all a "mystery" to those who are familiar with the evidence, such as Dr. Saplosky here. The genetic evidence (which shows how the brain evolution took place genetically) coupled with the fossil evidence (which confirms that it happen in real creatures, in the general timeframe expected) make it pretty clear that mark's difficulty in admitting the evidence and easy plausibilty for human brain evolution is just in his own brain, not in those of the experts.

As pointed out before, the statistic that we are 98% the same in our DNA as Chimpanzee has been conclusively proven to be false:

​

whoa, talk about a non-sequiter! I like turtles, huh? If you want to talk about the many different way to estimate the difference, you can do so. I was pointing out that the change in brain size is not a mystery to the experts, whom mark apparently thinks he knows more than.



Papias
​

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME DESIGNER WHO USED A SIMILAR BLUEPRINT.

Do you understand y/n?

Regarding the new information by duplication - the many references that others and myself have posted show that some are observed in modern times, some proven to have happened in the past - just like most branches of science that prove things in the past, like forensics and astronomy.

Please present the timeline of 'theistic evolution' for critique/prompt destruction.

Well, being that you ignored my description I posted last time you demanded something like that, I'll wait until you at least respond to that.

******************************

MM- I see you must have missed my question from post #44. If you check the link I gave in that post, you can see an incident where a person in this discussion presented a half truth (by removing data that didn't fit their claim). I asked you what you thought of this practice. Do you think that regardless of where we stand on this, we should adhere to the commandment not to bear false witness?

Papias

 

[pgp_protector]

I know I am way late to the party and pages upon pages have been discussed since the above was posted, but I felt as though I HAD to point this out.

This is an excerpt from the article that was posted by Khaos.

"Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste." (emphasis mine)

​

Did anyone notice that? These evolutionists claim that the lizards were demonstrating evolution and yet they (the lizards) were STILL GENETICALLY IDENTICAL to the original group! These other lizards show some different features than their genetically identical ancestors, but they are still genetically the same. There was no gaining of information. THere was no speciation. Though the lizards "appeared" different, they were still the genetically identical twins of the old ones.

No new genetic information was added. There was a difference in appearance, but they were genetically still the same.


In Christ, GB

Actually it's indistinguishable not identical. And they only looked at the mitochondrial DNA.

Link to PNAS full report.
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

 

[Metal Minister]

I did see that, but considering I have very little in the way of knowledge of genetics and our brain's development, I'm hesitant to say anything one way or the other. If someone knowingly lies I would say that is wrong, but again, in this instance I don't know enough to say.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Papias]

MM - yep, makes sense.

However, I wasn't referring to genetic stuff, but to the fossil hominids, where a gap between 600 and modern humans was claimed (and a list supplied with a gap there), but then it was shown that the list failed to show many transitional fossils.

God bless-

Papias

 

[good brother]

Actually it's indistinguishable not identical. And they only looked at the mitochondrial DNA.

Link to PNAS full report.
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Definition of IDENTICAL

1
: being the same

2
: having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same.

​

Definition of INDISTINGUISHABLE

a : not distinguishable:

b : not clearly recognizable or understandable

c : lacking identifying or individualizing

Synonyms coequal, duplicate, equal, even, identical, indistinguishable


Kind of a potAAto, potahhto kind of a thing, huh?

From the article you posted we see several things:

​

Although the islet of Pod Mrcˇaru was originally
inhabited by another lacertid lizard species (​

​

Podarcis melisellensis),
repeated visits (twice yearly over the past three years, beginning in
2004) show that this species has become extinct on Pod Mrcˇaru.
Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards
currently on Pod Mrcˇaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically​

indistinguishable from lizards from the source population.

Methods​

Samples and Phylogenetic Analysis.​

​

​

​

​

Islands were visited in spring and summer
of 2004, 2005, and 2006. Lizards were caught by noose and transported to the
field laboratory or measured in situ. Small tail clips (4 mm) were taken from
all individuals and stored in 100% ethanol for genetic analysis. To corroborate
morphological identifications, a subset of specimens from both islands (Pod
Kopisˇte, n 8; Pod Mrcˇaru, n 7) and a set of reference specimens of P.
melisellensis from Lastovo Island (n 7) were subjected to DNA sequence
analysis. Total genomic DNA was extracted by using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit
(Qiagen). Two mitochondrial DNA fragments (12S rDNA and 16S rDNA) were
amplified by PCR by using the primer pairs 12SaL (5-AAACTGGGATTAGATACCCCACTAT-
3) and 12SaH (5-GAGGGTGACGGGCGGTGTGT-3) for the 12S
fragment (modified from ref. 24) and 16Sar (5-CCGGTCTGAACTCAGATCACGT-
3) and 16Sbr (5-CGCCTGTTTAACAAAAACAT-3) for the 16S fragment
(25). PCRs were performed in a total volume of 25 l, containing 200 M of
each dNTP, 0.2 Mof each primer, 2.5 l of TaqPCR buffer (10), 1.25 units of​

Taq​

​

​

​

​

polymerase (Qiagen Taq for 12S and Sigma REDTaq for 16S), and DNA
template (1 l for 12S and 3 l for 16S). The PCR protocols started with an
initial DNA denaturation at 95°C (5 min) and ended with a final extension step
of 5 min at 72°C. Amplification was done in 35 cycles of 95°C (1 min), 50°C (1​

min), and 72°C (2 min) for 12S and 95°C (45 s), 46°C (45 s), and 72°C (90 s) for

16S. PCR products were purified with the GFX PCR DNA and Gel Band Purification
Kit of Amersham Biosciences and sequenced by using the Big Dye
Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems) on an AB 3130 XL
Genetic Analyzer. Sequences were edited and aligned with BioEdit software
(26). The MEGA v4 (27) was used to calculate pairwise Jukes–Cantor distances
and to construct a neighbor-joining tree based on a concatenated alignment
of both gene fragments, including all published data of specimens for which
both gene fragments were available in the GenBank database (28, 29) and
with​

​

​

​

Podarcis muralis as outgroup (SI Fig. 5). Branch support was obtained by​

1,000 bootstrap replicates.
​

Scientists wouldn't use terms like "genetically indistinguishable" lightly, especially in an article expounding the "wonders of expedient evolution"


In Christ, GB

 

[mark kennedy]

mark, that post directly address the argument - by showing that it is an altered list with evidence hidden from view, and is further a PRATT. That's exactly what "addressing the argument" is. You, on the other hand, use so many ad hominen attacks that it was trivially easy for metherion to list dozens of them from a single thread. You are again projecting (seeing your own behavior in others), and as you know, I'm not the only one who has pointed out that you are projecting by accusing others of your own ad hominen behavior.

Not altered, just incomplete. The list I originally posted was intended to be brief and demonstrate that the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes would have started right around 2 million years ago. It's not a lie when someone disagrees with you or you have some peevish compulsion to belittle the opposing view. You behavior is exclusively focused on making biting personal remarks in every post, at the heart of the emphasis and driving it home in dramatic fashion. That is a flaw form of logical argumentation theistic evolutionists are uniformly sold out to.

I don't care what you believe or why you believe it. My only concern is that standard you base your reasoning on, that has been my approach from the beginning. I used that approach when learning doctrine and will continue to seek out the primary source authority whenever I search out an issue. I can get your arguments from any Darwinian Christian or otherwise because you all focus on tearing down the beliefs of Creationists rather then making positive statements from your convictions.

It's called an ad hominem fallacy and you are one of the worst.

I'm not asking anyone to chase anything down. The graph makes it easy to see:

The graph identifies none of the particulars so I end up searching out the scientific literature on the subject. I have had some success along these lines with paleontology and great success with genetics. The superficial fluff Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins puts out is all but useless except as a primer and just to be clear, I avoid creationist websites for the same reason.

Why do you consider the posting of actual data to be shameful? It looks like you have an aversion to actual data.

I have an aversion to over simplifications being passed of as definitive proof.

No fossil skulls are perfectly complete (so don't try to use "incompletness" as an excuse), and of the homo erectus skulls we have show plenty of examples outside the normal human range. If you are trying to imply the homo erectus is not clearly different from modern humans, then you have again posted a falsehood.

The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are complete, both have been completely sequenced. That 'expert' you like so much made a bogus statement concerning the comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genomes. Would you like to admit the error or would you like to see from the paper he is citing that his statement is false?

I'm not asking to do anything with a mulberry bush - just to look at actual data.

Remove the links, remove the images, remove the excessive formatting and all you are left with from Papias are rude remarks. The quote here is typical.

Why did you cut off your cut and paste immediately before it said - in your own reference - that the best and most recent crainial capacity is at about 700 cm³, right in the middle of your fabricated gap? Did you hope everyone would miss that?

On the contrary, I posted the details in the hopes of raising two points of interest. The timeline indicates the two fossils are inside a two million year time frame and all you provided was an image from an evolutionist propaganda site.

Another example right in the middle of your fabricated gap (848 is outside the normal human range). And you can see from the gap there are plenty more. If you really wanted to learn about them, you could go and get a degree in this area, or even ask an expert familiar with them. You can see from the evidence presented that there are more than just two (again you have posted a falsehood), and even if it were just those two, your fabricated gap would still be shown to be false.

No, it's not outside the normal human range, it may well be outside the range for apes but it's hard to say sometimes since they overlap. You are not presenting evidence your fabricating corrections, nothing more. Not one particular in that statement, not a single substantive fact and yet you boast of a conclusive argument and insist on calling me a liar.

Perfect ad hominem fallacy.

False. 700 and 850 are not in the normal range of 90% of humans.

Still within the human range and by normal I meant modern.

mark, do you not understand what "selected" means? It means that it is an incomplete list - because a full list of all the dozens of transitional ape-human fossils would be very long. Plus, as you can see yourself, that's an old list, from 1997.

The list is fine, the fossils are not changing on a daily basis. The problem is that you are not interested in letting substantive details enter the discussion which I'm sure is earning great applause from the back of the theater.

Reference? Secondly - changing selective pressures are expected to change the rate at which mutations are retained. Thirdly, and most importantly, that's a red herring anyway, since your claim was that the 1 mutation in 100,000 years was somehow too fast, when simple division shows that it's very much a reasonable rate.

No, I'm saying that one mutation would kill the fetus. Get you facts straight. When has there even been an observed beneficial effect from a random mutation in a brain related gene?

I can give you a hundred diseases and disorders directly related to point mutations in brain related genes. Can you show me a single selective advantage resulting from one?

If you understood genetics, you would understand that the commonalities are nested and too long to be due to chance, while the differences fit well with random mutation.

I understand mutation rates just fine, do you understand the effects of mutations on brain related genes or would you like a reading list?

whoa, talk about a non-sequiter! I like turtles, huh? If you want to talk about the many different way to estimate the difference, you can do so. I was pointing out that the change in brain size is not a mystery to the experts, whom mark apparently thinks he knows more than.

What is the rate when 1.33% changes to 4%? That's the question, would you like to see the formula again?

 

[Metal Minister]

And honestly this is why I didn't want to say anything. I don't know enough of 1) the subject matter and 2) the actual question at hand...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

I did see that, but considering I have very little in the way of knowledge of genetics and our brain's development, I'm hesitant to say anything one way or the other. If someone knowingly lies I would say that is wrong, but again, in this instance I don't know enough to say.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Fair enough, did you catch the part where this guy says we are 98% the same in our DNA, as expected?:

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

Citing this publication that actually found:

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;​

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

Now let me ask you a straight forward question. In what universe does 3% plus 1.23% add up to 2%. That would be less then 96% the same and as far as brain related genes. Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find disease and disorder associated with mutations in brain related genes:

Landmark Genome Poster

Where are the beneficial effects documented in the scientific literature for the genes that would have had to had a massive overhaul?

“For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said Lahn. “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.Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'​

The thing is, evolutionists like to tell us that our DNA is virtually identical to that of the Chimpanzee. That was the prediction but when the initial sequence of the humans genome (published 2001) was compared to the Chimpanzee genome (published 2005) they found something called indels (insertions/deletions) which are really long stands of DNA that are in one genome and not the other. Evolutionists don't want to talk about them.

Then they want to tell us that brain related genes only require a few choice mutations here and there, now and then. That is simply not true and I base this on what I have been reading for years on the research in the area of comparative genomics.

All Papias has to do to get the approval of Darwinians who monitor this forum is to insult Creationists, that's why he does it. He need not read, much less understand the research going on in this field.

Brother I might not give you every detail about every fossil but I can tell you for a fact. There is no way that we are 98% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA, this has been conclusively proven to be false. What I can also tell you, and demonstrate from the scientific literature in this area of research, it's not a few choice mutations in a few choice genes. It would have required a lot of mutations in a lot of genes.

One more thing and I dare Papias to try to prove this one wrong. The mutations in brain related genes produce devastating diseases and disorders and have never been demonstrated or observed as having a lasting or significant beneficial effect.

Those are the facts and you don't need a PHD to understand it.

Grace and peace,
Mark