Creationism and the Darwinian Theator of the Mind

[thilipsis]

Summary:

• HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
• SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
• 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy.

Discussion:

What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution. Comparative Genomics should have ended, or at least challenged, Darwinian evolution by now but it is exalted above all skepticism. The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history. The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)

This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes:

The evolutionary time separating human and macaque (20–25 million years) is grossly comparable to that separating rat and mouse (16–23 million years)…214 such genes in all of the four taxa chosen…

Increases in brain size and complexity are evident in the evolution of many primate lineages…However, this increase is far more dramatic in the lineage leading to humans than in other primate lineages…

accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development, represents a salient genetic correlate to the profound changes in brain size and complexity during primate evolution, (Molecular Evolution of the Human Nervous System. Bruce T. Lahn et al. Cell 2004)

That was probably the broadest comparison of brain related genes between apes and humans shortly after the unveiling of the findings of the Human Genome Project in 2001. Since then they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).

The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)

What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:

• 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
• A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
• Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)

The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above)

Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)

In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

Darwinian isn't a term Creationists made up, the Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

On the other hand, if you feel Darwinians have made their case and find their arguments convincing I say go in peace I have no problem with you. If on the other hand you are interested in valid skepticism regarding the evolution of the human brain from that of apes there is ample evidence to indicate that Darwinism isn't a conclusion but an, a priori (without prior), assumption that allows for exclusively naturalistic causes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited November 23, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors

[Dave LP]

Greetings Mark!

I am a creationist as well and don't have any issues with such a well laid out argument.  Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out what a tremendous leap of faith Darwinists take to believe in common ancestry.  I once rejected Christianity because of things like the virgin birth, Noah's ark, or Jonah and the whale.  Big bang cosmology and Darwinism appealed to me because (at the time) they didn't seem to require any leaps of faith, or any God for that matter.  I know better now. 

Getting back to the topic at hand, since this is such a great example of the shortcoming of Darwinism I hate to see this thread wane.  I thought I might ask some questions on behalf of Darwinists.   A recent article  would suggest viruses are a vehicle to drive human evolution.    I personally think it still requires the giant leap of faith random mutations do because of 60+ de novo genes as well as finding a needle in a haystack with regard to functioning SRGAP2b/c/d genes.  But I like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.

Blessings!

-Dave

 

 

 

[Enoch2021]

3 hours ago, Dave LP said:

 A recent article  would suggest viruses are a vehicle to drive human evolution.   

How can that be, since 'viruses' are Obligate Parasites (??); i.e., they need Life Existing FIRST, so as to Exist.

And 'suggestions' aren't "SCIENCE"; They're Metaphysical "Just-So" Stories.

Also, Can you define evolution....?  Then post the 'Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

 

Quote

I personally think it still requires the giant leap of faith random mutations do because of 60+ de novo genes as well as finding a needle in a haystack with regard to functioning SRGAP2b/c/d genes.  But I like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.

Wouldn't it be a 'GREATER' Leap of Blind Scientifically Falsified 'Faith' to adhere to even Matter Existing (??) without "A Knower" ... not even speaking to Functional DNA/RNA/Protein, all 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation like   --- wickering themselves together "Spontaneously' (Naturally) from their respective building blocks ??

 

regards

 

[thilipsis]

10 hours ago, Dave LP said:

Greetings Mark!

I am a creationist as well and don't have any issues with such a well laid out argument.  Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out what a tremendous leap of faith Darwinists take to believe in common ancestry.  I once rejected Christianity because of things like the virgin birth, Noah's ark, or Jonah and the whale.  Big bang cosmology and Darwinism appealed to me because (at the time) they didn't seem to require any leaps of faith, or any God for that matter.  I know better now. 

Getting back to the topic at hand, since this is such a great example of the shortcoming of Darwinism I hate to see this thread wane.  I thought I might ask some questions on behalf of Darwinists.   A recent article  would suggest viruses are a vehicle to drive human evolution.    I personally think it still requires the giant leap of faith random mutations do because of 60+ de novo genes as well as finding a needle in a haystack with regard to functioning SRGAP2b/c/d genes.  But I like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.

Blessings!

-Dave

Some interesting points Dave, liked the article. One of the side effects of learning about this sort of thing you start to wonder about real world adaptive evolution. The immune system is a prime example, what is interesting about the article is that they are focusing on protein evolution. Protein coding genes are in triple codons making up the amino acid chain, taken together it's the reading frame. Just wanted to throw in a few anecdotal examples, I'll forego the citation and just wing it from memory for now.

There is this arctic cod that has coevolved, at least 4 times, a very special gene that produces an antifreeze gene that produces a protein that keeps them from freezing in the frigid waters of the arctic. It's simple repeats but the gene suggests there is an adaptive mechanism that triggers the development of this gene. For a while the evolutionists were talking about the nylon eating bug, a bacteria that developed the ability to eat nylon. When I looked into it I found that it had basically swapped out a reading frame, again suggesting some kind of a deliberate molecular mechanism, not some random mutation.

So you think about immunity and how it adapts, the key adaptive part is when it becomes inheritable. I don't think science has taken us far enough to really comprehend how that happens exactly but you will no doubt find it's not random. Life is not chaotic but orderly, even meticulous. This speaks elegantly for intelligent design and God's divine providence in nature. Our Intelligent Design friends have been detailing this for some time now, from our end we look at known history and a single definitive revelation. It can be summed up with, 'in the beginning God' and we do well to emphasis that point. Discerning between adaptive evolution in real world terms and idle speculations can help to inform our understanding how real world science works and wrestle it away from the Darwinian mythographers. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by thilipsis

[thilipsis]

7 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

How can that be, since 'viruses' are Obligate Parasites (??); i.e., they need Life Existing FIRST, so as to Exist.

And 'suggestions' aren't "SCIENCE"; They're Metaphysical "Just-So" Stories.

Also, Can you define evolution....?  Then post the 'Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

 You kind of have a point here but I think you need to think in terms of the adaptive evolution they are inferring here.

Their findings suggest an astonishing 30 percent of all protein adaptations since humans' divergence with chimpanzees have been driven by viruses. (Science News)

This is that old black magic they use so well, just like mutations plus beneficial effects this is viruses plus beneficial effects. Just one problem they are assuming an effect from comparisons, not demonstrating them in practical terms. The ERV are said to be responsible for half of the human genome, the basic idea is that they are the result of highly unlikely germ line cell invasions. The thing is, the most researched cellular invasion of retroviruses is HIV and they are responsible for destroying immune systems, not building them up with adaptive selective advantages.

Now about the 'theory of evolution', frankly there is no such thing. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. The so called 'theory of evolution' is a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. This gets a whole lot easier if you can discern between the two.

Quote

 

Wouldn't it be a 'GREATER' Leap of Blind Scientifically Falsified 'Faith' to adhere to even Matter Existing (??) without "A Knower" ... not even speaking to Functional DNA/RNA/Protein, all 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation like   --- wickering themselves together "Spontaneously' (Naturally) from their respective building blocks ??

 

regards

 

Brother I mean this with all due respect, that kind of thinking will have you running in circles before you know it. Viruses don't drive evolution, protein evolution is a very real adaptive process that fights viral infections. Think about this a minute:

When an environmental change occurs, species are able to adapt in response due to mutations in their DNA. Although these mutations occur randomly, by chance some of them make the organism better suited to their new environment. These are known as adaptive mutations. (Viruses are a dominant driver of protein adaptation in mammals)

Ok now that's what the article is telling us but it's based solely on comparing genomes. They are suggesting mutations and viruses are the cause but I think we know mutations and viruses a little better then that:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1998)

'A very few are at least momentarily adaptive', that's what I'd like you to take away from this without getting bogged down in the details. Then there is something else I think is critical to understand here, genetic mutations are not the same thing as adaptive evolution:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)

When I study the Bible, I follow the Scriptures where they lead me and always check the New Testament witness. When if comes to scientific literature I like to go to the source material and basic scientific definitions. The problem with Darwinism is it can piggy back in on the sciences and pass itself off as scientific. I say, look at what a mutation and a virus actually is and then decide if you think they drive evolution or if they are detriments to living systems. It's not that this is so complicated that keeps my interest, it's the fact that at the end of the day it so very simple. They are simply assuming viruses and mutations with nothing directly observed or demonstrated to support their...guess we could call it...theory.

Please don't tell the Darwinians I said this but I have an alternative theory. God purposely created things differently which explains the vast differences in the genomes and provided for adaptive evolution by providing genomes with molecular mechanisms for that purpose. Viruses are dangerous and mutations are a failure of DNA repair. What puzzles me is if living systems have evolved so much then why does the genome provide so many repair mechanisms and have to rely on mutations and viruses for the giant leaps presupposed in Darwinian philosophy?

That's just between you and me, don't let the Darwinians know I'm on to them.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors

[Dave LP]

13 hours ago, thilipsis said:

Some interesting points Dave, liked the article. One of the side effects of learning about this sort of thing you start to wonder about real world adaptive evolution. The immune system is a prime example, what is interesting about the article is that they are focusing on protein evolution. Protein coding genes are in triple codons making up the amino acid chain, taken together it's the reading frame. Just wanted to throw in a few anecdotal examples, I'll forego the citation and just wing it from memory for now.

There is this arctic cod that has coevolved, at least 4 times, a very special gene that produces an antifreeze gene that produces a protein that keeps them from freezing in the frigid waters of the arctic. It's simple repeats but the gene suggests there is an adaptive mechanism that triggers the development of this gene. For a while the evolutionists were talking about the nylon eating bug, a bacteria that developed the ability to eat nylon. When I looked into it I found that it had basically swapped out a reading frame, again suggesting some kind of a deliberate molecular mechanism, not some random mutation.

So you think about immunity and how it adapts, the key adaptive part is when it becomes inheritable. I don't think science has taken us far enough to really comprehend how that happens exactly but you will no doubt find it's not random. Life is not chaotic but orderly, even meticulous. This speaks elegantly for intelligent design and God's divine providence in nature. Our Intelligent Design friends have been detailing this for some time now, from our end we look at known history and a single definitive revelation. It can be summed up with, 'in the beginning God' and we do well to emphasis that point. Discerning between adaptive evolution in real world terms and idle speculations can help to inform our understanding how real world science works and wrestle it away from the Darwinian mythographers. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

I think I see what you mean.  The real world examples of adaptive evolution always seem to be built in from the beginning.  The potential to adapt was put in by our Creator, not the unguided forces of nature as Darwin suggested.  I also remember the Darwinists talking about the nylon eating bacteria not realizing it was actually evidence against 'random' mutations.  It makes me wonder about the 60+ de novo genes.  From someone assuming universal common ancestry they would appear to be de novo, but from someone assuming our Creator made us those genes were there from the beginning.

When you mention the coevolution of the antifreeze gene happening 4 times, I've always wondered how that squares within a Darwinian view.   Their assumption is common ancestry, but when that doesn't fit convergent evolution is the explanation.  Why isn't convergent evolution the default assumption?

Excellent point here:

"It's not that this is so complicated that keeps my interest, it's the fact that at the end of the day it so very simple. They are simply assuming viruses and mutations with nothing directly observed or demonstrated to support their...guess we could call it...theory."

Blessings!

-Dave

[Dave LP]

22 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Also, Can you define evolution....?  Then post the 'Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

 

Wouldn't it be a 'GREATER' Leap of Blind Scientifically Falsified 'Faith' to adhere to even Matter Existing (??) without "A Knower" ... not even speaking to Functional DNA/RNA/Protein, all 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation like   --- wickering themselves together "Spontaneously' (Naturally) from their respective building blocks ??

 

regards

 

Simply defined evolution is change over time.  I have no issues with that.   Simply stated Darwin's theory is descent with modification.  Which does have issues.  I accept the 'scientific theory' of evolution that species change and adapt to their environment.  It's when people use the small observable changes we see within a species as evidence of their Darwinistic philosophy that it becomes a problem.    

What is your definition of evolution and a scientific theory? 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Dave LP

[thilipsis]

1 hour ago, Dave LP said:

I think I see what you mean.  The real world examples of adaptive evolution always seem to be built in from the beginning.  The potential to adapt was put in by our Creator, not the unguided forces of nature as Darwin suggested.  I also remember the Darwinists talking about the nylon eating bacteria not realizing it was actually evidence against 'random' mutations.  It makes me wonder about the 60+ de novo genes.  From someone assuming universal common ancestry they would appear to be de novo, but from someone assuming our Creator made us those genes were there from the beginning.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said once, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts'. Darwinians want to tell us that Creationism is an argument from incredulity (ignorance), but I don't see any real indication of that. The difference is simply two world views, God creating life about 6000 years ago changes none of the actual facts.

Quote

When you mention the coevolution of the antifreeze gene happening 4 times, I've always wondered how that squares within a Darwinian view.   Their assumption is common ancestry, but when that doesn't fit convergent evolution is the explanation.  Why isn't convergent evolution the default assumption?

Convergent evolution is the explanation, clearly this gene has arisen de novo at least 4 times. There have been a number of papers written about this and they can even tell you where the DNA was taken from and roughly how it was constructed. To date they haven't been able to determine the mechanism responsible but you don't get the option of mutations or viruses, that's for sure. 

Quote

Excellent point here:

"It's not that this is so complicated that keeps my interest, it's the fact that at the end of the day it so very simple. They are simply assuming viruses and mutations with nothing directly observed or demonstrated to support their...guess we could call it...theory."

Blessings!

-Dave

I studied the fossils for years and one of the biggest breakthroughs for me was when I realized there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record. It didn't really dawn on me until the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published in 2005, in the same edition they reported that three maybe four Chimpanzee teeth were found in the Rift Valley. The article says these are the first chimpanzee fossils ever found, that just blew me away. After that it was obvious, every time a chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors. 

I've noticed a lot of things like that, when the basic strategy they are using is understood the facts fall right into place. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited November 25, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

14 minutes ago, Dave LP said:

Simply defined evolution is change over time.

Fair enough.

 

Quote

Simply stated Darwin's theory is descent with modification.

Is that a "Scientific Theory" or a Colloquial 'theory'...?

"theory" (Colloquial):  Abject Speculation !! 

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED  through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

See the difference?

 

Quote

I accept the 'scientific theory' of evolution that species change and adapt to their environment.

1.  Please CITE a source that states this is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

2.  A complete moron @ the beginning of time could have more or less came to the same conclusion observing two consecutive generations of his family and a family of squirrels. 

3. "Species"(genus, family, ect) is merely a contrived classification system (Taxonomic) used to categorize.; it's an arbitrary man-made construct --- Rubber Ruler. 

4.  Actual "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

Ergo, "Species Change" as a Scientific Theory is a tear jerkin belly laugher.  Besides the slap in the face Begging The Question Fallacy with 'Species", It's tantamount to exclaiming that the Scientific Theory of a Hurricane is: "A Change in the Weather". 

 

 

Quote

What is your definition of evolution and a scientific theory? 

1.  evolution -- change.

2.  There isn't and never was a "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

 

regards

 

[Enoch2021]

15 hours ago, thilipsis said:

 Brother I mean this with all due respect...

With all do respect, @ a minimum, I'm gonna have to see some evidence that you sat for and passed High School General Chemistry before we can continue. 

 

regards