Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Admin3

The Human Brain. Could It Have Evolved?

Recommended Posts

OK I see your confusion – what you have to realise is that we are looking back in time and only seeing the ‘winners’.  This gives the impression of advancement , this is an illusion.

So, it is your position that a person of the present day is no more advanced than the first simple life form? I am not confused by this. I am bewildered that an intelligent person can make such a claim.

E.g. lets take the early eye, Animal X has a primitive eye, during the course of several generation one develops an advantageous mutation in the eye, (to the environment it finds itself in) – it flourishes.  As the same time as this is going on each other animal is also playing the evo game, but non come up with such an advantage (loosers). Over a period of time the advantage becomes more and more prevalent.

Why does this mutation occur? If it is a random mutation in the genes it is illogical to assume that exactly the same genetic mutation would occur in in the animal's contemporaries; For the change to take hold in a population it would have to effect a large portion (30%, 40, 50, ?) of the population simultaniously.

 

 

Correct, this has been proven experimentally. Evolution works at the genetic level only, at the point of reproduction. What you are born with you are stuck with. Were you under the impression that evolution states: life experience can affect evolution or via the gnome?

They don’t need to know , there  is no thought process required, it is survival only.  Those that can react to danger survive and have children, those that cant react to danger die.

 

It’s a tough universe! there is no morality of right or wrong here (at this primitive level you describe), it’s just replication.

5433[/snapback]

You claimed that the first life forms, would have evolved the first sensory organs in response to various stimulae; heat, noise and danger as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I see your confusion – what you have to realise is that we are looking back in time and only seeing the ‘winners’.  This gives the impression of advancement , this is an illusion. 

So, it is your position that a person of the present day is no more advanced than the first simple life form? I am not confused by this. I am bewildered that an intelligent person can make such a claim.

More advanced in what direction?, ‘advanced’ and ‘direction’ are subjective, what if I were to say which animal, human or amoeba, can withstand the greatest temperature or time without food and that was the amoeba?

When we talk of advanced we are comparing it to the features we have, there’s nothing relay wrong with that but it can lead to a misconception that evolution has some aim or purpose.

 

E.g. lets take the early eye, Animal X has a primitive eye, during the course of several generation one develops an advantageous mutation in the eye, (to the environment it finds itself in) – it flourishes.  As the same time as this is going on each other animal is also playing the evo game, but non come up with such an advantage (loosers).  Over a period of time the advantage becomes more and more prevalent.

 

Why does this mutation occur? If it is a random mutation in the genes it is illogical to assume that exactly the same genetic mutation would occur in in the animal's contemporaries; For the change to take hold in a population it would have to effect a large portion (30%, 40, 50, ?) of the population simultaniously.

It is not a requirement for the entire population to undergo simulations mutation (That is not the ToE), only one representative has the mutation, it survives and passes on the trait, some of it’s offspring will also inherit the advantage and they too flourish, etc, etc. gradually the mutation becomes fixed in the population.

 

 

 

You claimed that the first life forms, would have evolved the first sensory organs in response to various stimulae; heat, noise and danger as I recall.

IMO sensory organs, give a huge survival advantage, they allow the exploration of the environment without the need to actually be there, so yes I would assume these sorts of things would evolve early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More advanced in what direction?, ‘advanced’ and ‘direction’ are subjective, what if I were to say which animal, human or amoeba, can withstand the greatest temperature or time without food and that was the amoeba? 

When we talk of advanced we are comparing it to the features we have, there’s nothing relay wrong with that but it can lead to a misconception that evolution has some aim or purpose.

 

Yes they are subjective terms. As in any comparison there must be subjects. Lets use two others. A rock and a computer. Both are nonsentient and have no life. Both are incapable of independant action. Expose them both to severe conditions and they rock will survive beyond any test the computer cannot. But the computer is claerly more advanced. Only an evolutionist could attempt to claim the humans are not advanced compared to an amoeba because the advancement proves there must be guidence, design or some purpose. If there is purpose then evolution cannot be mindless, accidental. So you must make such rediculous statements. In my "religion" I am aloowed to look at the world and reason it's existance. In your religion such is not allowed. And everybody says it is Christians who are intolerant.

It is not a requirement for the entire population to undergo simulations mutation (That is not the ToE), only one representative has the mutation, it survives and passes on the trait, some of it’s offspring will also inherit the advantage and they too flourish, etc, etc. gradually the mutation becomes fixed in the population.

Current populations do not support this. Abnormal members of animal (families) packs, etc. are outcast and do not bread. And you ignored the problem of dominant genes. A single mutation would be dominated by the status quo and be bread out IF the mutated member were alloed to bread which is not the norm in the wild.

IMO sensory organs, give a huge survival advantage, they allow the exploration of the environment without the need to actually be there, so yes I would assume these sorts of things would evolve early.

5477[/snapback]

Of course you would assume they evolved early. Because it can only be an assumption. There is no evidence of any life form with sensory organs. There is no evidence of life forms less than fully formed. Because they can't exist. Life has irreducible complexity and cannot function without it.

Again I will allow that your argument needs them to exist so accept that they do.

However, you need to explain what would cause these life forms, which are simple and incapable of anything except existing, to develope sensory organs to sense what they don't know is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More advanced in what direction?, ‘advanced’ and ‘direction’ are subjective, what if I were to say which animal, human or amoeba, can withstand the greatest temperature or time without food and that was the amoeba? 

When we talk of advanced we are comparing it to the features we have, there’s nothing relay wrong with that but it can lead to a misconception that evolution has some aim or purpose.

 

Yes they are subjective terms. As in any comparison there must be subjects. Lets use two others. A rock and a computer. Both are nonsentient and have no life. Both are incapable of independant action. Expose them both to severe conditions and they rock will survive beyond any test the computer cannot. But the computer is claerly more advanced.

by your own example a rock is more advanced with an ability to last, while a computer is more advanced with it’s technology, this is the point I was making.

 

Only an evolutionist could attempt to claim the humans are not advanced compared to an amoeba because the advancement proves there must be guidence, design or some purpose.

How does advancement in one direction and retreat from another prove guidance, and purpose? It’s just evolutionary compromise ™.

 

 

If there is purpose then evolution cannot be mindless, accidental. So you must make such rediculous statements. In my "religion" I am aloowed to look at the world and reason it's existance. In your religion such is not allowed. And everybody says it is Christians who are intolerant.

yes if there is purpose, but that’s a big IF, saying it (philosophy) and proving it (science) are two different things.

 

 

 

 

 

It is not a requirement for the entire population to undergo simulations mutation (That is not the ToE), only one representative has the mutation, it survives and passes on the trait, some of it’s offspring will also inherit the advantage and they too flourish, etc, etc. gradually the mutation becomes fixed in the population.

Current populations do not support this. Abnormal members of animal (families) packs, etc. are outcast and do not bread. And you ignored the problem of dominant genes. A single mutation would be dominated by the status quo and be bread out IF the mutated member were alloed to bread which is not the norm in the wild.

You seem to be saying that a mutation will turn some animal into something abnormal, if it did then that mutation would not survive (i.e. the afflicted animal does not find a mate), the mutation has to give the animal an advantage.

 

Mutations spread faster in small populations, a mutation in a heard of a million Wildebeest can get ‘lost in the noise’. For evolution to take a hold you need to place the population under stress.

 

 

 

 

 

IMO sensory organs, give a huge survival advantage, they allow the exploration of the environment without the need to actually be there, so yes I would assume these sorts of things would evolve early.

Of course you would assume they evolved early. Because it can only be an assumption. There is no evidence of any life form with sensory organs. There is no evidence of life forms less than fully formed. Because they can't exist. Life has irreducible complexity and cannot function without it.

Again I will allow that your argument needs them to exist so accept that they do.

However, you need to explain what would cause these life forms, which are simple and incapable of anything except existing, to develope sensory organs to sense what they don't know is there.

The fossil record with few exceptions only preserves the hard parts (bone and shell), comparative anatomy with modern analogues is a reasonable (but far from infallible) method of determining what organs the animal in question has.

 

Like any aspect of evolution one feature evolves into a different role, e.g. a sensitive skin spot becomes an eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by your own example a rock is more advanced with an ability to last, while a computer is more advanced with it’s technology, this is the point I was making.

You, not I, call the rock advanced. I looked up "advanced". Several definitions are available. None seem to allow the use you are. The rock's inate ability to withstand hazard is not a value which will meets any defintion of advance(d). You are using a favored tactic of the evolutionist. Attempting to change the meaning or use of established facts. This makes your argument flexible and able to qualify under any scrutiny by changing the question when the facts don't fit your required answers.

 

How does advancement in one direction and retreat from another prove guidance, and purpose?  It’s just evolutionary compromise â„¢.

I have asked many times and you refuse to answer. WHAT STIMULATES THE MUTATION? The answer must include a mechanism which can cause useful mutation in the first simple life form, or it is null of effectiveness.

yes if there is purpose, but that’s a big IF, saying it (philosophy) and proving it (science) are two different things.

 

Again you imply that if a thing contains religion/philosophy it is by definition unscientific. There is no mutual exclusion. They coexist. One recomendation from God, in the Bible, on nutrition, is not to eat the bottom feaders of the ocean. Turns out to be good advice. Religious advice proved scientific. The proof of it (science) is in the pudding. A human is clearly more advanced and complex compared to the lower (you call them first) life forms. A human clearly has more genetic complexity and diversity than lower life forms. There is more in the DNA of a human than lower life forms. Nature is not capable of providing any method by which this can be achieved.

You seem to be saying that a mutation will turn some animal into something abnormal, if it did then that mutation would not survive (i.e. the afflicted animal does not find a mate), the mutation has to give the animal an advantage.

Exactly! Bingo! Hit it on the nose! The mutation MUST give advantage. This advantage comes from advancing the genetic code which is impossible for nature to achieve. There would need to be a source for the addition.

Mutations spread faster in small populations, a mutation in a heard of a million Wildebeest can get ‘lost in the noise’.  For evolution to take a hold you need to place the population under stress.The fossil record with few exceptions only preserves the hard parts (bone and shell), comparative anatomy with modern analogues is a reasonable (but far from infallible) method of determining what organs the animal in question has.

 

Like any aspect of evolution one feature evolves into a different role, e.g. a sensitive skin spot becomes an eye.

5506[/snapback]

Again you avoid the question and give an opinion when fact is requested. IF, there is a new (the most simple life form) suddenly in the "primordial soup"; It is incapable of experiencing its surroundings. It is incapable of reproduction. It is incapable of manipulating. It does not have a "sensitive spot" on its "skin" (where did the skin suddenly come from?). Give a scientific description of how it might (I accept that nobody can know) get to the next step. We have agreed to ignore abiogeneisis. Tell us how the next step is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chance:

 

I don’t understand the question, what do you understand to be the difference between a link and a branch?

The evlutionary tree of life does not show any transitional forms. All species are linked by common ancestors, but never directly to each other. Of the 2 million or so living species of plants and animals, none are transitional. If transitional forms existed, why are they all extinct.

Not necessarily transitional forms (they have not gone extinct they have evolved into something different in a continuous line in that tree of life).   There are numerous dead ends, e.g. Mammoth, Neanderthal.

You say they evolved into something else. Are you saying that favorable mutations always replaced the entire species?

 

We seem to be covering old ground again re transitional, however, there is many example of hominid transitional forms, and other animals.  But it is very difficult to be 100% confident and claim it is our direct ancestor, how could you if you only have a dozen or so finds spaced 10,000’s years apart!  The fossil record can only show the big picture, never anything like a family tree showing mothers, grand fathers uncles and aunts. 

Interpretation of the fossil record is subjective. Why are there no living transitional species? You suggest that we look at the big picture. The "big picture" of the fossil record is a conspicuous lack of transitional species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, not I, call the rock advanced. I looked up "advanced". Several definitions are available. None seem to allow the use you are. The rock's inate ability to withstand hazard is not a value which will meets any defintion of advance(d). You are using a favored tactic of the evolutionist. Attempting to change the meaning or use of established facts. This makes your argument flexible and able to qualify under any scrutiny by changing the question when the facts don't fit your required answers.

I have asked many times and you refuse to answer. WHAT STIMULATES THE MUTATION? The answer must include a mechanism which can cause useful mutation in the first simple life form, or it is null of effectiveness.

5534[/snapback]

Do you mean "more complex" rather than "advanced"? Or would "more complex" be a more accurate term (or equal description) for what you're describing? I ask because it seemed so in reading your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chance> by your own example a rock is more advanced with an ability to last, while a computer is more advanced with it’s technology, this is the point I was making.

 

springer> You, not I, call the rock advanced. I looked up "advanced". Several definitions are available. None seem to allow the use you are. The rock's inate ability to withstand hazard is not a value which will meets any defintion of advance(d). You are using a favored tactic of the evolutionist. Attempting to change the meaning or use of established facts. This makes your argument flexible and able to qualify under any scrutiny by changing the question when the facts don't fit your required answers.

Ahem …. this is your quote is it not? (my bold)

A rock and a computer. Both are nonsentient and have no life. Both are incapable of independant action. Expose them both to severe conditions and they rock will survive beyond any test the computer cannot. But the computer is claerly more advanced.

Thus by your own example the rock is less advances. If this is not what you intended, then perhaps a different example will be more appropriate. But IMO it makes no difference, I’m sure we both know the point you were trying to make and rock/computer is as good as any.

 

How does advancement in one direction and retreat from another prove guidance, and purpose?  It’s just evolutionary compromise â„¢.

I have asked many times and you refuse to answer. WHAT STIMULATES THE MUTATION? The answer must include a mechanism which can cause useful mutation in the first simple life form, or it is null of effectiveness.

What does it matter how a mutation occurs to the question of â€ÂÂHow does advancement in one direction and retreat from another prove guidance, and purpose? It’s just evolutionary compromise†Lets, for the moment speculate and say a gamma ray did it, the mutation happened, how do you get direction or advancement for the mutation? – you don’t you just get change, the environment does the selection.

 

 

yes if there is purpose, but that’s a big IF, saying it (philosophy) and proving it (science) are two different things.

 

Again you imply that if a thing contains religion/philosophy it is by definition unscientific. There is no mutual exclusion. They coexist. One recomendation from God, in the Bible, on nutrition, is not to eat the bottom feaders of the ocean. Turns out to be good advice. Religious advice proved scientific. The proof of it (science) is in the pudding. A human is clearly more advanced and complex compared to the lower (you call them first) life forms. A human clearly has more genetic complexity and diversity than lower life forms. There is more in the DNA of a human than lower life forms. Nature is not capable of providing any method by which this can be achieved.

Good example, saying it (the Bible) recommends not to eat a specific fish (does it say why is should not be eaten?). Science confirms that bottom feeding fish (I presume in that region of the world only) have some undesirable property. So what ‘purpose’ do you find here? Has science proved anything other than some local fish property?

 

You seem to be saying that a mutation will turn some animal into something abnormal, if it did then that mutation would not survive (i.e. the afflicted animal does not find a mate), the mutation has to give the animal an advantage.

Exactly! Bingo! Hit it on the nose! The mutation MUST give advantage. This advantage comes from advancing the genetic code which is impossible for nature to achieve. There would need to be a source for the addition

.

 

Yes the mutation must give an advantage, that is the core point in evolution. But I don’t understate why you claim it’s impossible (if a mutation can be bad why cant it also be harmful or indifferent?). The source is the mutation. I think you need to explain your objection further as I don’t understand it.

 

 

 

Mutations spread faster in small populations, a mutation in a heard of a million Wildebeest can get ‘lost in the noise’.  For evolution to take a hold you need to place the population under stress. The fossil record with few exceptions only preserves the hard parts (bone and shell), comparative anatomy with modern analogues is a reasonable (but far from infallible) method of determining what organs the animal in question has.

 

Like any aspect of evolution one feature evolves into a different role, e.g. a sensitive skin spot becomes an eye.

 

Again you avoid the question and give an opinion when fact is requested. IF, there is a new (the most simple life form) suddenly in the "primordial soup"; It is incapable of experiencing its surroundings. It is incapable of reproduction. It is incapable of manipulating. It does not have a "sensitive spot" on its "skin" (where did the skin suddenly come from?). Give a scientific description of how it might (I accept that nobody can know) get to the next step. We have agreed to ignore abiogeneisis. Tell us how the next step is achieved.

For any given trait (string of DNA) the mutation can affect that aspect of it. You objection to the "sensitive spot" on its "skin" is unwarranted, as no matter what example I came up with you could always reply with But where did that come from ad infinitum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand the question, what do you understand to be the difference between a link and a branch?

<snip references to transitional> All species are linked by common ancestors, but never directly to each other.

Ok, given the rarity of finding fossils this is to be expected. I have stated many times the tree of life can only show the big picture not individual lineages. But you have failed to explain the difference of link and branch.

 

Not necessarily transitional forms (they have not gone extinct they have evolved into something different in a continuous line in that tree of life). There are numerous dead ends, e.g. Mammoth, Neanderthal.

You say they evolved into something else. Are you saying that favorable mutations always replaced the entire species?

Absolutely not. The parent species can still hang around while a sub group becomes isolated and change.

 

 

We seem to be covering old ground again re transitional, however, there is many example of hominid transitional forms, and other animals.  But it is very difficult to be 100% confident and claim it is our direct ancestor, how could you if you only have a dozen or so finds spaced 10,000’s years apart!  The fossil record can only show the big picture, never anything like a family tree showing mothers, grand fathers uncles and aunts. 

 

Interpretation of the fossil record is subjective. Why are there no living transitional species? You suggest that we look at the big picture. The "big picture" of the fossil record is a conspicuous lack of transitional species.

A professional uses comparative anatomy to determine where a given fossil is placed in the tree of life, of course there is room for error, new finds revise the tree continuously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, given the rarity of finding fossils this is to be expected.  I have stated many times the tree of life can only show the big picture not individual lineages

In the first place, fossils are not rare. Given the supposed time span of several hundred million years that they cover, one would expect a plethora of transitional fossils.

Secondly, why are there no living transitional species?

 

But you have failed to explain the difference of link and branch.

For example, a chimpanzee is not a link to humans, it is a branch off the evolutionary tree. Chimps and humans supposedly share a common ancestor. The entire evolutionary tree is like that. No direct ancestors to anything.

 

Absolutely not.  The parent species can still hang around while a sub group becomes isolated and change.

 

O.K., if there is no need for extinction, then why are all the ancestors of the some 2 million living animals and plants extinct? If they evolved, why is there not any living species today that is a direct ancestor to another?

 

A professional uses comparative anatomy to determine where a given fossil is placed in the tree of life, of course there is room for error, new finds revise the tree continuously.

There is great room for error, partly be cause skeletal anatomy only reveals a fraction of the organisms actual biology, not to mention that fossils are imperfectly preserved. Furhermore, interpretation as to what constitutes "transitional" can be very subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, given the rarity of finding fossils this is to be expected.  I have stated many times the tree of life can only show the big picture not individual lineages

 

In the first place, fossils are not rare.

In proportion to the quantity of life that exists and must have existed, it is extremely rare. By a huge margin most fossils are marine invertebrates, the exciting stuff is practically non existent by comparison.

 

 

But you have failed to explain the difference of link and branch.

 

For example, a chimpanzee is not a link to humans, it is a branch off the evolutionary tree. Chimps and humans supposedly share a common ancestor. The entire evolutionary tree is like that. No direct ancestors to anything.

It is difficult (impossible) to be certain if any given fossil is our ‘direct’ ancestor, that is true. No one has claimed otherwise.

 

 

Absolutely not.  The parent species can still hang around while a sub group becomes isolated and change.

 

O.K., if there is no need for extinction, then why are all the ancestors of the some 2 million living animals and plants extinct? If they evolved, why is there not any living species today that is a direct ancestor to another?

How about the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo (Pan paniscus). Also read up on ring species LINK

 

 

 

A professional uses comparative anatomy to determine where a given fossil is placed in the tree of life, of course there is room for error, new finds revise the tree continuously.

 

There is great room for error, partly be cause skeletal anatomy only reveals a fraction of the organisms actual biology, not to mention that fossils are imperfectly preserved. Furhermore, interpretation as to what constitutes "transitional" can be very subjective.

Agreed, there is still much controversy on where a fossil belongs on the tree of life, because of the very things you state. As I stated the tree is revised continuously as new finds are analysed. Note - it is unusually to have a revision so great that the ‘big picture’ is overturned, it’s more like a shuffling of the ‘minor’ branches.

 

e.g the discovery of Archaeopteryx comes to mind for a major change in how the tree of life would be draw, while the recent discovery of Homo floresiensis, IMO would be a minor shuffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In proportion to the quantity of life that exists and must have existed, it is extremely rare. By a huge margin most fossils are marine invertebrates, the exciting stuff is practically non existent by comparison.

 

There are enough fossils that there should be unequivocal transitionals, and there are not.

 

It is difficult (impossible) to be certain if any given fossil is our ‘direct’ ancestor, that is true.  No one has claimed otherwise.

 

If it were an ancestor, I think it would be obvious genetically and morphologically.

 

How about the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo (Pan paniscus).  Also read up on ring species LINK

 

I think ring species represent microevolution. I'm not sure about the bonobo.

 

e.g the discovery of Archaeopteryx comes to mind for a major change in how the tree of life would be draw, while the recent discovery of Homo floresiensis, IMO would be a minor shuffle.

I've read that some are now considering archaeopteryx to be an early peripheral branch rather than a direct precursor to modern birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In proportion to the quantity of life that exists and must have existed, it is extremely rare.  By a huge margin most fossils are marine invertebrates, the exciting stuff is practically non existent by comparison.

 

There are enough fossils that there should be unequivocal transitionals, and there are not.

Archaeopteryx is a good representation.

 

 

It is difficult (impossible) to be certain if any given fossil is our ‘direct’ ancestor, that is true.  No one has claimed otherwise.

If it were an ancestor, I think it would be obvious genetically and morphologically.

We don’t have any genetic evidence, only fossil evidence, for placing a fossil in a position on the tree of life

 

How about the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo (Pan paniscus).  Also read up on ring species LINK

 

I think ring species represent microevolution. I'm not sure about the bonobo.

The question was related to extinction, and survivors yes? Then any link to a macro evolutionary example qualifies as representing a branch that has both parent and offshoot both existing at the same time.

 

 

e.g the discovery of Archaeopteryx comes to mind for a major change in how the tree of life would be draw, while the recent discovery of Homo floresiensis, IMO would be a minor shuffle.

I've read that some are now considering archaeopteryx to be an early peripheral branch rather than a direct precursor to modern birds.

Which is exactly the point, Archaeopteryx could be a surviving off shoot the parent at the same time. Statistically it’s more likely to be an offshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaeopteryx is a good representation.

 

Archaeopteryx is debatable and is only one example. If ToE is true, the fossil record should be replete with thousands of examples.

We don’t have any genetic evidence, only fossil evidence, for placing a fossil in a position on the tree of life

This is precisely the reason that the fossil record cannot be relied on. Placing a species as transitional is too subjective. If one only looks at living plants and animals, one will see a striking lack of transitionals.

 

Suppose, for a moment, that no flightless birds existed except in the fossil record. There would be a strong temptation to place the ostrich as transitional. It has poorly developed wings and claws on its wings. It is built for running, and the hypothesis could be made that it was evolving toward flight. Of course, when we have the real bird before us, we see that it is 100% bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaeopteryx is a good representation.

 

Archaeopteryx is debatable and is only one example. You said it's important to look at the "big picture". I'm looking at it, and I see a lack of transitionals.

Which is sort of the point I’m making, is Archaeopteryx a cousin or a direct ancestor to the bird, and is it possible to tell?

 

If one is to compare features you will find it has some bird and some dinosaur (enough one would think to qualify), but is it possible to tell exactly where on the tree of life it lived? I say no and that’s why the whole question of “no transitional’s†is a smokescreen.

 

 

(ingnore, ignore, ignore,igno)|--------------ARCHI--------

DINO------------------------ARCHI----------------------------------BIRD

 

above diagram not very good, i could not figure out how to put in a hard space)

 

 

We don’t have any genetic evidence, only fossil evidence, for placing a fossil in a position on the tree of life

This is precisely the reason that the fossil record cannot be relied on. Placing a species as transitional is too subjective. If one only looks at living plants and animals, one will see a striking lack of transitionals.

I maintain you can’t identify a ‘transitional’ the way you seem to want to define it. But the fossil record is good enough for the big picture and cannot be dismissed because of your singular way requiring the evidence to look like.

 

Suppose, for a moment, that no flightless birds existed except in the fossil record. There would be a strong temptation to place the ostrich as transitional. It has poorly developed wings and claws on its wings. It is built for running, and the hypothesis could be made that it was evolving toward flight. Of course, when we have the real bird before us, we see that it is 100% bird.

I would have to agree that that might be a possibility especially of the fossil in question is an isolated example, and the ostrich was found in an early strata preceding flying birds. (I am assuming that a palaeontologist, can’t tell if a bird was once able to fly, there may be way of identifying this, but I’m not sure).

 

I would be the last person to suggest that the understanding of the fossil tree of life is set in concrete, it’s not. Despite this deficiency in the small details the big picture is still consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem …. this is your quote is it not? (my bold)

 

Thus by your own example the rock is less advances.  If this is not what you intended, then perhaps a different example will be more appropriate.  But IMO it makes no difference, I’m sure we both know the point you were trying to make and rock/computer is as good as any.

 

 

Oops. Stepped on my own foot there. Thank you for pointing out my error. Must remember to be more precise. I believe though, you caught my point. It is obvious that when comparing a rock to a computer, the computer fits the definition of advanced. The same must be said for a human compared to the "first" simple life.

 

What does it matter how a mutation occurs to the question of â€ÂÂHow does advancement in one direction and retreat from another prove guidance, and purpose?  It’s just evolutionary compromise† Lets, for the moment speculate and say a gamma ray did it, the mutation happened,

I have allowed that abiogenisis did occur, for the sake of continuing the debate. Now it appears that I must assume also a magical(?) cause for mutations.

I am aware that mutations can be caused by random events, such as a gamma ray. However such mutations would be unable to affect macro-evolution. There could be no additional information (genetic, DNA . . .) supplied from such an event. Such an event could cause a loss of such information though.

 

how do you get direction or advancement for the mutation? – you don’t you just get change, the environment does the selection.

Change without direction or advancement is microevolution. It does not prove that macroevolution. There are many current examples of microevolution, such as the treee kangaroo. Some work out some fade away. In most cases, as I understand it, species affaected by microevolution are more apt to the circumstance which the adaptation met but lose qualities in the process. If then the enviroment is the sole cause of evolutionary change, it is a process working in reverse of what is taught in school.

 

yes if there is purpose, but that’s a big IF, saying it (philosophy) and proving it (science) are two different things.

Good example, saying it (the Bible) recommends not to eat a specific fish (does it say why is should not be eaten?).  Science confirms that bottom feeding fish (I presume in that region of the world only) have some undesirable property.  So what ‘purpose’ do you find here? Has science proved anything other than some local fish property?

 

.

 

The implication from God (the Bible) is that anything eating from the bottom, eats trash. Similar land animal restrictions can be found. The restriction is not regional, but world wide. In general, (biblically) the best animals, (land, sea or air) to eat are those which graze. This is found to be good dietary info by most professionals. The biblical reasoning is; Man(kind) was created for life in Eden. At that time there was no eating of flesh and plantlife was more abundant and had no dangers (thorns, poisons). "Tilling the soil" was not so much a labor as today. Man's sin altered this. It became necessary to eat flesh because some plants were removed from being edible, and the edible plants were fewer and harder to cultivate. By eating grazing animals we stay as close to the original design (of Man) as we can. years of microevolution has caused a certain reliance on meat in Man.

God gave many such recomendations. One well known but often misquoted is alcohol. There is no prohibition. Moderation is the recomendation. Current research supports moderate use is benificial.

 

Yes the mutation must give an advantage, that is the core point in evolution.  But I don’t understate why you claim it’s impossible (if a mutation can be bad why cant it also be harmful or indifferent?).  The source is the mutation.  I think you need to explain your objection further as I don’t understand it.

 

I believe you intended to say that a mutation could be benificial as easily as not. I agree. However, I believe for evolution there must be addition of genetic info. Nature cannot supply genetic info.

 

For any given trait (string of DNA) the mutation can affect that aspect of it.  You objection to the "sensitive spot" on its "skin" is unwarranted, as no matter what example I came up with you could always reply with But where did that come from ad infinitum.

5554[/snapback]

My objection is not that there may be a sensative spot. Rather, my objection is that this sensative spot cannot be "passed on". The spot would be reaction to the enviroment. The organism affected would be beyond any ability of genetic manipulation. It cannot pass this sensativity to offspring. No more than you can pass on a cut to a son. Therefore, reaction to the environment cannot be a tool of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the brain would have been no different to any other organ with respect to mutation.  Nevertheless I think it fair to say no organ fairs ‘well’ to mutation as many are harmful, while others neutral.

They would be different in the sense that they have more genes involved. The human brain has something like 1,000 genes involved with the liver coming in at a close second.

 

Point of correction – we evolved from a common ancestor to the apes, they (Chimpanzee, Gorilla, are just as modern as ourselves).  The split in Human/Chimp lineage is roughly 5Mya, see this time line

I am well aware of the timeline, the split supposedly happened 5-7 million years ago with the homo line starting about 2 1/2 million years ago. The brain would have expanded exponentially in that time. For a more authoritive and comprehensive expostion of the fossil evidence see, Early Human Phylogeny

 

This is the famous cerebral Rubicon of Johnathan Leaky. He published this find in a classic paleontology paper called "Lattest New From Olduvia Gorge".

 

"The earliest fossil to bear the name Homo was found by Jonathan Leaky at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1970. He found a cranium fragment that was much thinner than any from the known australopithecine species. It had smaller cheek teeth and, more important, greatly increased cranial capacity. Though Leaky's find had a capacity of about 650 cubic centimeters, subsequent fossils placed the average at about 800 cc, well above the "cerebral Rubicon" of 750 cc first proposed for genus Homo by British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith. The first member of the human family was named Homo habilis, or "handy man," because it emerged coincident with the earliest known use of stone tools, about 2.5 million years ago. "

 

The Cerebral Rubicon

 

The point is that this unprecedented expansion of the brain has no viable genetic mechanism for creating these changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have allowed that abiogenisis did occur, for the sake of continuing the debate. Now it appears that I must assume also a magical(?) cause for mutations.

 

I am aware that mutations can be caused by random events, such as a gamma ray. However such mutations would be unable to affect macro-evolution. There could be no additional information (genetic, DNA . . .) supplied from such an event. Such an event could cause a loss of such information though. <moved for clarity> I believe you intended to say that a mutation could be benificial as easily as not. I agree. However, I believe for evolution there must be addition of genetic info. Nature cannot supply genetic info.

There are at least 7 mechanisms that can induces mutation, I have posted them before and can again if you wish, nothing magical about it. My understanding of DNA is that it function like a set of computer instruction, change the instruction and it changes the output. But if you want to postulate the existence of ‘information’ I suggest taking it to the “restarting the information debate†thread.

 

how do you get direction or advancement for the mutation? – you don’t you just get change, the environment does the selection.

 

Change without direction or advancement is microevolution. It does not prove that macroevolution. There are many current examples of microevolution, such as the treee kangaroo. Some work out some fade away. In most cases, as I understand it, species affaected by microevolution are more apt to the circumstance which the adaptation met but lose qualities in the process. If then the enviroment is the sole cause of evolutionary change, it is a process working in reverse of what is taught in school.

The concept of Micro/Macro evolution is not a concept in mainstream science other than depicting more or less change. There is only one evolutionary mechanism and that is the combination of mutation plus selection. This YEC claim of loosing or gaining ‘information’ has no evidence in main stream science, and if they wish to further the idea then research is required, else it will never be supported.

 

 

yes if there is purpose, but that’s a big IF, saying it (philosophy) and proving it (science) are two different things.

Good example, saying it (the Bible) recommends not to eat a specific fish (does it say why is should not be eaten?).  Science confirms that bottom feeding fish (I presume in that region of the world only) have some undesirable property.  So what ‘purpose’ do you find here? Has science proved anything other than some local fish property?

 

The implication from God (the Bible) is that anything eating from the bottom, eats trash. Similar land animal restrictions can be found. The restriction is not regional, but world wide. In general, (biblically) the best animals, (land, sea or air) to eat are those which graze. This is found to be good dietary info by most professionals. The biblical reasoning is; Man(kind) was created for life in Eden. At that time there was no eating of flesh and plantlife was more abundant and had no dangers (thorns, poisons). "Tilling the soil" was not so much a labor as today. Man's sin altered this. It became necessary to eat flesh because some plants were removed from being edible, and the edible plants were fewer and harder to cultivate. By eating grazing animals we stay as close to the original design (of Man) as we can. years of microevolution has caused a certain reliance on meat in Man.

God gave many such recomendations. One well known but often misquoted is alcohol. There is no prohibition. Moderation is the recomendation. Current research supports moderate use is benificial.

All very interesting, but ultimately the acceptance of this is one of faith. Science would draw the same conclusion independently of any textual source.

 

 

My objection is not that there may be a sensative spot. Rather, my objection is that this sensative spot cannot be "passed on". The spot would be reaction to the enviroment. The organism affected would be beyond any ability of genetic manipulation. It cannot pass this sensativity to offspring. No more than you can pass on a cut to a son. Therefore, reaction to the environment cannot be a tool of evolution.

No feature can just happen it is caused by the DNA blue print, evolution works at the genetic level only, you seem to be proposing some sort of Lamarckism mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the brain would have been no different to any other organ with respect to mutation.  Nevertheless I think it fair to say no organ fairs ‘well’ to mutation as many are harmful, while others neutral.

 

They would be different in the sense that they have more genes involved. The human brain has something like 1,000 genes involved with the liver coming in at a close second.

Interesting, would that give more scope or less for evolution?

 

 

This is the famous cerebral Rubicon of Johnathan Leaky. He published this find in a classic paleontology paper called "Lattest New From Olduvia Gorge".

 

"The earliest fossil to bear the name Homo was found by Jonathan Leaky at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1970. He found a cranium fragment that was much thinner than any from the known australopithecine species. It had smaller cheek teeth and, more important, greatly increased cranial capacity. Though Leaky's find had a capacity of about 650 cubic centimeters, subsequent fossils placed the average at about 800 cc, well above the "cerebral Rubicon" of 750 cc first proposed for genus Homo by British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith. The first member of the human family was named Homo habilis, or "handy man," because it emerged coincident with the earliest known use of stone tools, about 2.5 million years ago. "

 

The Cerebral Rubicon

 

The point is that this unprecedented expansion of the brain has no viable genetic mechanism for creating these changes.

A few of points:

 

Your choice of a link to the "American renaissance" is somewhat disturbing, I think it is a White supremacy web site and hardly likely to be unbiased. From Gooogle ("Promotes a variety of white racial positions").

 

I don’t understand why you would think Sir Arthur Keith’s ‘authority’ would be above that of evidence found by Leaky, (or Leaky’s above that of later contemporaries) there is something like a 50 year gap! and,

 

You state there is “no viable genetic mechanismâ€ÂÂ, are you proposing that mutation/selection cannot account for what we see? And what is your reasoning to make this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least 7 mechanisms that can induces mutation, I have posted them before and can again if you wish, nothing magical about it.  My understanding of DNA is that it function like a set of computer instruction, change the instruction and it changes the output.  But if you want to postulate the existence of ‘information’ I suggest taking it to the “restarting the information debate†thread.

 

 

The mechanism to cause a mutation is of little concern. We cannot know what the actual mechanism was. Mutations obviously occur and I guess I let myself move off in a direction I did not intend. The point I intended and missed was; regardless of the mutation, or cause, nature cannot provide increased complexity to DNA. This thread "Replying to The Human Brain. Could It Have Evolved?" is directly related to this fact. Without a method to improve, advance, enhance or whatever term you want to use,there is no method to go from the first simple life to the complexity of a brain. Not even if you take billions of years and baby steps. I'll continue the analogy of a computer. A gamma ray strikes the computer. A lucky chain of events allows the ray to alter the code (software is the PC = of our DNA) without causing harm to the PC. This lucky stroke even causes some of the resident code to be re-organized. Another lucky stroke (I'll not bring up probability) causes the software to re-organize in a stable, useful program. There are only 3 results I see possible:

A program of lesser ability due to loss of code.

A re-shuffle of the code to an equally capable program of similar function.

A streamlined program-capable of the same function with less code.

The new program is limited by the available code just as altering our DNA is limited to the available DNA code. Option 3 seems best for evolution but is problematical. The streamlined code can perform the same function with greater efficiency but has lost some its original code, limiting the available code and restricting the possibility of change.

 

The concept of Micro/Macro evolution is not a concept in mainstream science other than depicting more or less change.  There is only one evolutionary mechanism and that is the combination of mutation plus selection.  This YEC claim of loosing or gaining ‘information’ has no evidence in main stream science, and if they wish to further the idea then research is required, else it will never be supported.

 

The concept is accepted and discussed often in many areas of science. The only "science" (?) not in agreement with the accepted differentiation are evolutionists, for obvious reasons. It has been the long standing argument from evolutionists that microevolution occurs and is proof of macroevolution. Science does not agree because macroevolution has never been observed and there is no knowm mechanism by which microevolution can lead to macroevolution. The code of DNA (information or whatever you want to call it) cannot be added to without a source for the addition. That is accepted in science.

 

All very interesting, but ultimately the acceptance of this is one of faith.  Science would draw the same conclusion independently of any textual source.

 

Would you deny the truth of it BECAUSE it is biblical? That is where this point started. You seem to harbor the belief that biblical = useless. Science has realized the truth of the dietary recomendations from the Bibile. The reason I gave the lengthy description was only for information, a plausible reasoning of why the diet is better. There is no need for you to believe that chain of events occured. The nutritional benifits can be found in medical journals today. One might wonder though; how did the writers of the Bible 3-4 thousand years ago know about this? Knowledge of such dietary information was non-existant. But that is clearly off topic.

 

No feature can just happen it is caused by the DNA blue print, evolution works at the genetic level only, you seem to be proposing some sort of Lamarckism mechanism.

5695[/snapback]

I didn't know the term, lamarckism, but looked it up. It was your suggestion that the first simple life would mutate due to enviromental conditions such as heat, pain, or fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip> The point I intended and missed was; regardless of the mutation, or cause, nature cannot provide increased complexity to DNA. This thread "Replying to The Human Brain. Could It Have Evolved?" is directly related to this fact. Without a method to improve, advance, enhance or whatever term you want to use, there is no method to go from the first simple life to the complexity of a brain. Not even if you take billions of years and baby steps. I'll continue the analogy of a computer. A gamma ray strikes the computer. A lucky chain of events allows the ray to alter the code (software is the PC = of our DNA) without causing harm to the PC. This lucky stroke even causes some of the resident code to be re-organized. Another lucky stroke (I'll not bring up probability) causes the software to re-organize in a stable, useful program. There are only 3 results I see possible:

A program of lesser ability due to loss of code.

A re-shuffle of the code to an equally capable program of similar function.

A streamlined program-capable of the same function with less code.

The new program is limited by the available code just as altering our DNA is limited to the available DNA code. Option 3 seems best for evolution but is problematical. The streamlined code can perform the same function with greater efficiency but has lost some its original code, limiting the available code and restricting the possibility of change.

Well there seem to be other possibilities, see this link LINK

From the link

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).

RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

So your statement that it cannot seems unwarranted.

 

 

The concept of Micro/Macro evolution is not a concept in mainstream science other than depicting more or less change.  There is only one evolutionary mechanism and that is the combination of mutation plus selection.  This YEC claim of loosing or gaining ‘information’ has no evidence in main stream science, and if they wish to further the idea then research is required, else it will never be supported.

 

 

The concept is accepted and discussed often in many areas of science. The only "science" (?) not in agreement with the accepted differentiation are evolutionists, for obvious reasons. It has been the long standing argument from evolutionists that microevolution occurs and is proof of macroevolution. Science does not agree because macroevolution has never been observed and there is no knowm mechanism by which microevolution can lead to macroevolution. The code of DNA (information or whatever you want to call it) cannot be added to without a source for the addition. That is accepted in science.

I disagree, there is only one mechanism posited for evolution (mutation + selection), if you think ‘macroevolution’ has some other mechanism, what is it? because I have never heard of it.

 

 

All very interesting, but ultimately the acceptance of this is one of faith.  Science would draw the same conclusion independently of any textual source.

 

Would you deny the truth of it BECAUSE it is biblical? That is where this point started. You seem to harbor the belief that biblical = useless. Science has realized the truth of the dietary recomendations from the Bibile. The reason I gave the lengthy description was only for information, a plausible reasoning of why the diet is better. There is no need for you to believe that chain of events occured. The nutritional benifits can be found in medical journals today. One might wonder though; how did the writers of the Bible 3-4 thousand years ago know about this? Knowledge of such dietary information was non-existant. But that is clearly off topic.

I do not deny the truth of the matter because the source is biblical, because how do you determine what came first? Are we to assume people wrote the dietary law into the Bible because God told them or because that was the custom anyway? How difficult would it be to find a similar arrangement in some other non biblical text, could I then claim divine authorship to that document also?

 

To explain how people discover what is good to eat and what is not, this is the method the Australian Aborigines use when confronted with a new food:

 

 

Smell it,

Rub a small portion on the skin, see if there is a reaction (wait some days for any reaction)

Taste test – using tip of tongue (no swallowing) (wait some days for any reaction)

Swallow test - use a very small portion (wait some days for any reaction)

 

Quite scientific really, this practice will eventually find out what’s good to eat.

 

 

No feature can just happen it is caused by the DNA blue print, evolution works at the genetic level only, you seem to be proposing some sort of Lamarckism mechanism.

 

I didn't know the term, lamarckism, but looked it up. It was your suggestion that the first simple life would mutate due to enviromental conditions such as heat, pain, or fear.

Then you have misunderstood me (or I failed to make the point clear), I never meant that an organism can change it’s DNA due to the environment. Darwin knocked this idea on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, would that give more scope or less for evolution?

A few of points:

 

Your choice of a link to the "American renaissance" is somewhat disturbing, I think it is a White supremacy web site and hardly likely to be unbiased. 

I don't have the time right now for all of the things you said but I had no idea who or what was promoted on that particular website. I was interested in the Leaky paper and that was one of the hits in a google search. I have read the actuall paper and Nature has it on a list of classic scientific papers. I'll check around and see if I can find the paper somewhere. Thanks for pointing that out, your right, that is very disturbing.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there seem to be other possibilities, see this link LINK

From the link  So your statement that it cannot seems unwarranted.

 

First, let us finally agree that, as made clear in this link, information must be added for evolutin to succeed.

Yes, it is possible to get these results in the laboratory? Did you note the details of how the research was not on specimens allowed to act randomly but specifically choreographed? Evolutionary scientists have been performing such feats in labs for decades. As yet, only in labs, and with assistance has this been possible. I don't believe there were any labs or assistance available in the alledged primordial soup.

Also these results have only pointed to "likely" possibilities. They are admittedly not conclusive.

 

I disagree, there is only one mechanism posited for evolution (mutation + selection), if you think ‘macroevolution’ has some other mechanism, what is it? because I have never heard of it.

 

I do not think macroevolution has another mechanism. My point was and is that macroevolution has no mechanism. Mutation + selection is evolution's only hope, but it lacks the possibility of adding information.

 

I do not deny the truth of the matter because the source is biblical, because how do you determine what came first?  Are we to assume people wrote the dietary law into the Bible because God told them or because that was the custom anyway? 

The point of being a believer in a literal translation of the Bible IS believing that God said every word, unless it is obviously from a personal source. Did Moses say "God said" or "I said". There are cases of both and there are no unclear cases.

 

How difficult would it be to find a similar arrangement in some other non biblical text, could I then claim divine authorship to that document also?

You could but the text would need to provide the myriad proofs that God's Bible has given to be accepted as an equal.

 

To explain how people discover what is good to eat and what is not, this is the method the Australian Aborigines use when confronted with a new food:

Smell it,

Rub a small portion on the skin, see if there is a reaction (wait some days for any reaction)

Taste test – using tip of tongue (no swallowing) (wait some days for any reaction)

Swallow test -  use a very small portion (wait some days for any reaction)

 

Quite scientific really, this practice will eventually find out what’s good to eat.

 

I am an EMT/firefighter. This system also was used to discover whether an unknown substance at a scene was safe. For obvious reason it has been discontinued.

 

Then you have misunderstood me (or I failed to make the point clear), I never meant that an organism can change it’s DNA due to the environment. Darwin knocked this idea on the head.

5732[/snapback]

We are in agreement? Environmental conditions cannot affect mutation which can be "passed on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This buisness of mutations+natural selection is a very suspecious explanation for human brain evolution. The effects of mutations on the genes invovled with the human brain don't suggest anything remotely resembling adaptive evolution.

 

"we calculate that 0.6(13.8 + 46.5) + 16 Mb = 52.2 Mb have arisen as a result of de novo duplication since divergence of the two species. This corresponds to 4.4 Mb of duplication per million years or an effective fixation rate of 3.4 Mb of segmental duplication per million years (assuming chimpanzee−human separation at 6 million years ago and a polymorphism frequency of 0.2)."

A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications

 

That is 52.2 Mbs arising from duplications, 4.4 Mb of duplication per million years with a fixation of 3.4 Mb per million years. 3.4 duplications being fixed in the genes wide per year, on average, for millions of years.

 

"Evolutionary constraint on amino acid sites within the hominid lineage. Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively. About 5% of the proteins show in-frame indels, but these tend to be small (median = 1 codon) and to occur in regions of repeated sequence."

Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)

 

What do you think would happen if there was a germline in-frame indel, in say, the Fox2 and CFTR genes?

 

"In addition to the six regions, one further genomic region deserves mention: an interval of 7.6 Mb on chromosome 7q (see Supplementary Information 'Human population genetics'). The interval contains several regions with high scores in the diversity-divergence analysis (including the seventh highest score overall) as well as in the proportion of high-frequency derived alleles. The region contains the FOXP2 and CFTR genes. " (cited and linked above).

 

The result would be something like cystic fibrosis:

 

"More than 1,000 mutations in the CFTR gene have been found to cause cystic fibrosis. Most of these mutations either substitute one amino acid (a building block of proteins) for another amino acid in the CFTR protein or delete a small amount of DNA in the CFTR gene. The most common mutation, called delta F508, is a deletion of one amino acid at position 508 in the CFTR protein. This altered protein never reaches the cell membrane because it is degraded shortly after it is made."

 

Just one amino acid position is deleted and the cell membrane is degraded shortly after it is made. In the FOX2 gene it would result in mulitiple tumour types;

 

"Mutations affecting both isoforms of the NF2 transcript were detected in multiple tumour types including melanoma and breast carcinoma."

Mutations in transcript isoforms of the neurofibromatosis 2 gene in multiple human tumour types

 

Mutations cause dangerous diseases, particularly when they are germline mutations, especially when they effect the human brain or liver. Yet it is exactly here that these dangerous gene duplications and mutations would have had to be preserved. We know what the effects of mutations within the reading frame of these genes that are associated with higher cognitive functions and it isn't adaptive evolution. Darwinism can assume mutations accumulated with benefical effects but genetics is stuck with the actual facts.

 

The Chimpanzee Genome paper plays this neutral/slightly deleterious mutation angle. In the end it falls flat since it offers very little real life examples of how the most important gene involved could have inframe indels established genome wide with beneficial effects.

 

Grace and peace,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there seem to be other possibilities, see this link LINK

From the link  So your statement that it cannot seems unwarranted.

 

First, let us finally agree that, as made clear in this link, information must be added for evolutin to succeed. <moved> I do not think macroevolution has another mechanism. My point was and is that macroevolution has no mechanism. Mutation + selection is evolution's only hope, but it lacks the possibility of adding information.

No, first let me clear this up,

a. there is no evidence that DNA contains information in the senses of a code or cipher.

b. Evolutions is a process of change with no direction. If the earth environment changes and became very hostile, bacteriuria might think themselves in a paradise and thrive.

 

 

Yes, it is possible to get these results in the laboratory? Did you note the details of how the research was not on specimens allowed to act randomly but specifically choreographed?

Sounds consistent with all experiments that I know of, i.e. they eliminate as much of the variables as possible to test some specific action. If science did not experiment this way, future experiments on abiogenesis bight go along the lines of: - melt some magma, add water and some organic chemicals, cool for 3 million years – observe the results.

 

 

Evolutionary scientists have been performing such feats in labs for decades. As yet, only in labs, and with assistance has this been possible. I don't believe there were any labs or assistance available in the alledged primordial soup.

Also these results have only pointed to "likely" possibilities. They are admittedly not conclusive.

No one is stating they are conclusive, it’s circumstantial evidence only.

 

 

(1)I do not deny the truth of the matter because the source is biblical, because how do you determine what came first?  Are we to assume people wrote the dietary law into the Bible because God told them or because that was the custom anyway?  <moved> (2) How difficult would it be to find a similar arrangement in some other non biblical text, could I then claim divine authorship to that document also?

 

(1)The point of being a believer in a literal translation of the Bible IS believing that God said every word, unless it is obviously from a personal source. Did Moses say "God said" or "I said". There are cases of both and there are no unclear cases. <moved> (2)You could but the text would need to provide the myriad proofs that God's Bible has given to be accepted as an equal.

I have absolutely no problem with this POV, just can’t call it science that’s all.

 

 

To explain how people discover what is good to eat and what is not, this is the method the Australian Aborigines use when confronted with a new food:

Smell it,

Rub a small portion on the skin, see if there is a reaction (wait some days for any reaction)

Taste test – using tip of tongue (no swallowing) (wait some days for any reaction)

Swallow test -  use a very small portion (wait some days for any reaction)

 

Quite scientific really, this practice will eventually find out what’s good to eat.

 

 

I am an EMT/firefighter. This system also was used to discover whether an unknown substance at a scene was safe. For obvious reason it has been discontinued.

Wow I didn’t know that, they actually instructed you to do a taste test! Brrrrrrrrr. P.S. what is an EMT?

 

 

Then you have misunderstood me (or I failed to make the point clear), I never meant that an organism can change it’s DNA due to the environment. Darwin knocked this idea on the head.

 

We are in agreement? Environmental conditions cannot affect mutation which can be "passed on".

hmmmmmm, I better make this point absolutely clear as ‘environment’ could mean different things. With the exception of ionising radiation which is a known mutation agent and is part of our environment (I believe some synthetic chemicals can also induce mutation, but not to sure of this). My previous statement was meant for things like temperature, resources, predators, parasites, germs etc that sort of thing (non of which can physically alter the DNA in the parent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms