Saturday, December 17, 2016

A Single Mutation Makes Humans

The fix Was In

When evolutionists found out that the chimp and human genomes were practically identical they went ape, claiming the evidence all but proved our shared lineage, with the chimp, to a small, primitive, ancestral primate. There was only one problem: With so few random genetic changes, how would such dramatic and complex changes come about? Far from a confirmation, our similar genes posed a dilemma for evolution. For how could so little genetic change cause so much significant evolutionary distance be traversed? And if the answer is, as it always seems to be, that those rare and random genetic changes were able to achieve such monumental results because the requisite parts and pieces that would be used were, fortuitously, already in place (because they just happened to have evolved for some other reason), then we have entered the realm of just-so stories. For the theory then amounts to the claim that “the fix was in.” The various key ingredients to making a human were all there, lying around, perhaps in disguise, or perhaps doing some other job. And then they were systematically recruited, coming into their own by virtue of a few, rare, mutations finally occurring and enabling the puzzle pieces to come together. It would be like a supersonic jet aircraft just happening to come together because its various parts just luckily were lying around. That is serendipity on steroids.

Well it just gets worse. More recently evolutionists were forced to conclude that most of the mutations affecting protein-coding genes led to “neutral and slightly deleterious alleles.” So not only are evolution’s random mutation resources meager, but even worse, those mutations mostly led to “neutral and slightly deleterious alleles.”

In fact the beneficial mutations in protein-coding genes, which presumably would be important in evolving the human from a small, primitive ape, literally number only in the hundreds. It would be astonishing if the human could be evolved from so few mutations.

But again, it just gets worse. For now evolutionists must conclude that not only are there few random mutations that must somehow create Newton and Einstein (to name just a couple of humans), and not only are most of those mutations neutral or slightly deleterious, and not only would evolution probably have only a few hundred genes undergoing selection, but that a monumental part of that evolutionary change, so important in creating humans, must have arisen from, yes, a single mutation. To wit:

What distinguishes humans from monkeys and apes? The gene ARHGAP11B is probably among the things that make humans special: This gene is only present in humans and contributes to the amplification of brain stem cells. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden have now made a spectacular finding: It is a single base pair substitution in the ARHGAP11B gene that ultimately is responsible for the ability of the ARHGAP11B protein to amplify brain stem cells, a process thought to underlie the expansion of the neocortex in modern humans.

Spectacular indeed. As one of the researchers explained:

This change is tiny on a genomic scale but substantial in its functional and evolutionary consequences – it’s a single base substitution that likely drove brain size evolution and that may have set the stage for what makes humans special.

A single mutation? Here we have evolution reductio ad absurdum. A single mutation essentially worked the magic to create humans. How lucky we are.

Of course such absurdity entails the idea that an army of molecular components were serendipitously in place, ready and waiting for the single mutation to unleash their creative powers.

The fix was in.

50 comments:

  1. "A single mutation essentially worked the magic to create humans."

    Cornelius, you should try reading for comprehension. Just before the bolded quote are the following words:

    "The gene ARHGAP11B is probably among the things that make humans special: "

    When someone says that something is AMONG the things that make something special, they are clearly stating that it isn't the only thing.

    Down's syndrome people have all of the same genes that you have. No more, no less, yet they have significant morphological and intellectual differences that you or I. And that is just the result of an extra copy of a single chromosome. Humans have an extra pair of chromosomes as compared to the other apes. I have no idea what morphological differences this may cause, or even if it has an affect at all. But it is well known that the timing of gene expression and the extent of expression can have huge implications on development. All of this with essentially identical DNA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any evidence that genomes determine what type of organism will develop- and scientists have been looking for decades:

      Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

      No one has any idea what makes a human a human or a chimp a chimp. And without that universal common descent is untestable.

      Delete
    2. "There isn't any evidence that genomes determine what type of organism will develop- and scientists have been looking for decades."

      That will come as quite the surprise to the producers of genetically modified organisms.

      Delete
    3. That will come as quite the surprise to the producers of genetically modified organisms.

      Umm the changes made in GMOs do not change the form nor determine the form. GMO corn looks like corn.

      You obviously don't have a clue, Wee Willie.

      Delete
    4. Joke: "Umm the changes made in GMOs do not change the form nor determine the form. GMO corn looks like corn."

      By modifying the DNA of the Umbuku lizard, it developed wings. You must hate being wrong all of the time.

      Delete
    5. Umm that is still a lizard it just has wings. The modification did not change what developed.

      Your desperation, while entertaining, is not a refutation of my claims.

      Delete
    6. Scientists have modified fruit fly embryos to get legs where the antenna usually go and also another thoracic segment. Yet they are all still fruit flies.

      Delete
    7. Are you suggesting that a lizard with wings is not a different form of animal than a lizard without wings? Equivocation doesn't run in your family, you have it all.

      Delete
    8. Looks like that lizard was an April fool's joke:

      http://aprilfoolsjoke.blogspot.com/2010/03/2008.html

      I am sure Wee Willie thinks it's real though...

      Delete
    9. OK Joe. I am willing to admit that I was mistaken. Are you?

      I know you can do it. Repeat after me.

      "Wavelength does not equal frequency.

      Aside to Nic: do you think that Joe is capable of doing this? :)

      Delete
    10. Can you please link to the context of the discussion?

      Delete
    11. See Nic, I told you that Joe was pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake. Sad, when you think about it.

      Delete
    12. There are real cases of scientists reactivating the unexpressed genes for teeth in chickens. Then we have the occurrence of atavisms like leg bones occasionally appearing in cetaceans and toes occasionally appearing in horses.

      YECs like Joke have no explanation for atavisms so they don't even try.

      Delete
    13. GR: "YECs like Joke have no explanation for atavisms so they don't even try."

      I wonder how he explains my Marfans syndrome, or sickle cell anemia, or Huntington's chorea, or Down's syndrome while still denying that the genome doesn't determine the type of organism that will develop.

      Delete
    14. Wee Willie is still choking- first he cannot reference me saying wavelength = frequency so we can see the context as context is important. Next he thinks that HUMANs with sickle-cell anemia aren't humans! Mar fan syndrome- still a HUMAN. Down's syndrome- still a HUMAN.
      Wee Willie, so desperate and such a loser

      Delete
    15. There are real cases of scientists reactivating the unexpressed genes for teeth in chickens.

      They are still chickens

      Then we have the occurrence of atavisms like leg bones occasionally appearing in cetaceans

      Only ignorance and personal bias say those are leg bones.

      and toes occasionally appearing in horses.

      Reference please.

      Delete
    16. Humans have an extra pair of chromosomes as compared to the other apes.

      Humans have 46 whereas gorillas, chimps and orangutans have 48.

      See, you never get anything right.

      Delete
    17. "See, you never get anything right."

      Yup, I shouldn't drink and text. However, I admit my mistakes. Have you yet admitted that wavelength does not equal frequency?

      "Next he thinks that HUMANs with sickle-cell anemia aren't humans!"

      Where did I say that?

      "They are still chickens"

      Where did GR say that they weren't?

      "Only ignorance and personal bias say those are leg bones."

      Or a person with a knowledge of developmental biology.

      Keep in mind that we were responding to your claim that ""There isn't any evidence that genomes determine what type of organism will develop- and scientists have been looking for decades." A Downs syndrome person is a different type of human. A person with Marfans is a different type of human. A chicken with teeth is a different type of chicken (a type that you don't want to piss off).

      Delete
    18. Joke: "Wee Willie is still choking- first he cannot reference me saying wavelength = frequency so we can see the context as context is important."

      Damn, Joe bought me in another mistake. That is three in less than two days. A new record. apologize to Joe for claiming that he ever said the wavelength = frequency. What he actually said was:

      "Frequency = wavelength." Joe made this claim on some blog run by some brain-dead IDist. The blog is ironically called Intelligent Reasoning. Comment at 4:02 pm (http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-hidden-flaw-in-greenhouse-theory.html).

      Delete
    19. Where did I say that?

      That was the CONTEXT of the discussion. The same goes for the chickens.

      Or a person with a knowledge of developmental biology.

      They would call it a lost fin, not a lost leg.

      A Downs syndrome person is a different type of human.

      No, they are the same species. Every organism you listed is still the same species. The same type.

      It's as if your desperation has blinded you. Or perhaps you have always been this dim

      Delete
    20. Wee Willie- strange that you keep digging up this conversation about frequency and wavelength when it was finished and my mistake was admitted and all was explained. And I continued to explain it but obviously you have a one track mind that just keeps digging regardless.

      You must be one desperate loser

      Delete
    21. I see Joke's response to atavisms is to claim they don't exist. Just like he claims ToE doesn't exist.

      It's hard not to laugh at loud at his ignorance and stupidity.

      Delete
    22. Wow, I see ghostpukes response is to lie and not support its claims.

      As for the ToE, seeing that no one can link to it t5hat is all I need to know it doesn't exist.

      It's easy to laugh at desperate liars like ghostpuke.

      Delete
    23. "Wee Willie- strange that you keep digging up this conversation about frequency and wavelength when it was finished and my mistake was admitted and all was explained."

      Hmmm, I must have missed the comment where you admitted your mistake. It must have been hidden amongst the hundreds of comments that you used to try to defend your original claim that wavelength = frequency (oops, sorry, Frequency = wavelength). Could you please provide a link to it.

      Delete
    24. (laughs out loud at Joke's ignorance and stupidity) :D

      Delete
    25. Joke: "It's easy to laugh at desperate liars like ghostpuke."

      Hey, GR gets the to be a desperate liar but I am only a desperate loser? What do I have to do to get to GR's level?

      Delete
    26. OK so ghostpuke cannot support its lies- well that is why they call them lies and wee willie is trying to distract from the fact that he is a bluffing coward. IOW wee willie is also a liar, proven time and again

      Thankfully I will never become that desperate.

      Delete
    27. Thank you for the promotion. That means so much coming from you.

      Delete
    28. Joke you forgot to give us your ID-Creation explanation for atavisms. Did it get stuck between two of your chins?

      Delete
    29. Whatever wee willie- my original point stands, unrefuted:

      "There isn't any evidence that genomes determine what type of organism will develop- and scientists have been looking for decades."

      And all you have done is prove that you haven't a clue and because of that you desperately tried your typical distraction tactic. Thank you

      Delete
    30. Earth to ghostpuke- You forget to provide references to your claim about horses with toes. ID and Creation are OK with whales losing hind fins but keeping the coding for them. ID and Creation are OK with manipulating organisms and having something strange come about.

      OTOH your position cannot account for chickens, whales, nor horses. You can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. You lose but I am sure that won't stop you from spewing more nonsense.

      Delete
    31. LOL! Joke can't explain atavisms, goes into his usual spittle flying rage. Careful Joke, you'll short out your keyboard! :D

      Delete
    32. Wow, strange that I explained atavisms. And it is telling that ghostpuke can only spew accusations and never supports anything it spews.

      Delete
    33. OK so tiny tim is too stupid to understand explanations and too stupid to to understand his position cannot account for the animals with alleged atavisms.

      It's going to be a very Merry Christmas...

      Delete
    34. hi ghost. as joe explained: those bones can be a fin bones and not legs. more then this: we know that evolution isnt true because we know that nature need a designer. on the same base that we know that a self replicating robot with dna need a designer.

      Delete
  2. William,

    "Umbuku lizard,..."

    You might want to look into this one a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nic. What did I miss? Keep in mind what Joe originally claimed.

      Joe: "There isn't any evidence that genomes determine what type of organism will develop-"

      Delete
    2. And based on the research what I said is true. Oh wait, that is why you have an issue with it. You and the truth don't mix...

      Delete
    3. William,

      "What did I miss?"

      Just dig into it a little bit, please.

      Delete
    4. Nic: "Just dig into it a little bit, please."

      Joe very graciously pointed out my error. Oh well. I guess it just proves that I am human.

      Delete
    5. LoL! I point out your many errors on a daily basis. I doubt that you have ever been right. We haven't seen that yet

      Delete
    6. "Joe very graciously pointed out my error. Oh well. I guess it just proves that I am human."

      If only you were that gracious when confronted by the mistakes of others. But then, being gracious, courteous, and respectful in dialogue just isn't any fun, right?

      Delete
    7. "If only you were that gracious when confronted by the mistakes of others."

      I guess that I forgot to use the sarcasm font with my comment.

      Delete
    8. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

      " “JoeG - Joe Gallien

      This user is suspended until January 18, 2017 9:19am.
      Reason: Account suspended 30 days for repeated violation of dialogue guidelines”

      Poor Joke. His potty mouth gets him banned almost everywhere he goes. :)

      Delete
    9. ETA: That was at BioLogos where Joke racked up his latest suspension.

      Delete
    10. Yes, Tiny Tim, we already know that you are nothing but a gossip hen with nothing to offer but your blind spewage.

      And of course they suspended me- I was showing that they don't know jack about science nor evolution. And by doing so i exposed some of them as non-christians for the way they deal with adversity. That had to hurt. (Cornelius demonstrates the proper way christians should respond and biologos has a lot to learn)

      So I am OK with what happened. I wanted to learn about theistic evolutionists and now I know they are more whacked then I expected.

      Delete
  3. Excellent point and often made on this blog. It is a great and favorite point i wish YEC/ID creationists would press more.
    YES. if we are so DNA alike then why so unlike if that unlike needs so much more dNA diversity?
    This because we do have the ape body but our identity is in gods image. We were created separately but in order to be in the common blueprint we only could have a other creatures body type. We couldn't have a HUMAN body plan and remain in the common plan.
    so our identity is entirely intellectual.
    in fact we would be closer in DNA if our women had not been changed at the fall to have pain at birthing and if we had not changed for colours and other body details we now see.
    We uniquely in creation have another creatures body plan. no one else can say this.
    Like DNA is not evidence of common descent but only of like dna. the rest is lines of reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To one and all,

    It is time to take a break and enjoy Christmas and spend time with family and friends. So to that end, I want to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a joyous and blessed New Year. Most importantly, do not overeat.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Nic.
      Hope you have a blessed Christmas.

      Delete
    2. Hi Nic, I tried to wish you a merry Christmas but Cornelius never released it from moderation. I hope you and your family have a great Christmas.

      Delete