Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'

A recent article has confirmed that human brain evolution was special unlike anything else they have observed.
The full article can be found at:
Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event' | HHMI The key point here which gives Creationists a lot of fuel for their case is this quote:

quote:

---

One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. “For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said Lahn. “Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes”and even that is a conservative estimate.”

​

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked “extra-hard” during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

---

The whole questio is how did humans obtain so many mutations in such a small period of time? This is incredible even for evolutionists, but it is of course easier for creationists to explain.So the question is : Is this special event a series of chance mutations that just happened to go the right way or divine intervention? [/b][/i]Of course this goes back to the age old argument of beneficial mutations. But I am curious why do evolutionists themselves admit to a special event. It seems to me that they are somehow acknowledging a Divine Creation. Or at the very least, expressing incredulity towards the very process they claim to know about . That process of course being evolution driven by random beneficial mutations which has not been proven.

of course they did not assume that God did it, but they still called it special - a special event.Even from an evolution point of view, there is a lot to see here. How did such rapid change take place in such a short time?

quote:

---

It is nothing short of spectacular ...

---

And with the current experimentation with lab rats, its quite obvious that they have not been able to artificially create rats that are significantly more intellegent than their counterparts.The whole process seems incredible even to the evolutionist - so there must be something groundbreaking about this story...

The mutations must could not have occurred long before homoerectus since we know that the Australopithecus had about the brain size of a chimpanzee.So the mutations must have given rise to homo erectus - this cuts down the time span even before..Since while the brain size of sapiens is higher than erectus the major increase must have taken place just before and during the time of erectus...But there is no fossil evidence of any creature before erectus right and after Australopithecus.. .That's why its incredible.And why was suddenly brain size so important, obviously Australopithecus didn't need very large brains and they lasted for quite a while. What conditions would select for brains size in such a small space of time..

I meant short as in just a few million years..
Even the evolutionists were surprised that such a complex organ could have evolved in that time.
There is a lot of information missing here - what sort of mutations would have been necessary. What were the environmental pressures that acted on this creature to select for big brain size.

quote:

---

20 million / thousands = 20,000 years for a couple of mutations.

​

Is this really so unbelievable?

---

And I am assuming NO ONE knows what these couple of mutations are? They stimulated a part of the brain - increasing its cranial capacity ?

It still is remarkable since the history of civilization is over a few thousand years or so, then have any mutations occurred throughout history that we have discovered? Have our brains grown bigger - are we still evolving?
The problem with evolution theory is that it still does not have the smoking gun - the actual mechanism of beneficial mutations charted out. The honest answer is : we really don't know whether these mutations (to trigger brain size increase in subsequent generations or any other major change)can even happen, but we know that mutations happen (most neutral) and very few beneficial and we assume that the beneficial ones accumulated over generations via natural selection can amount to larger changes. None of this is being actually proven though it makes logical sense.
Alternatively, one can propose that a grand Designer designed all the creatures starting from simple to complex allowing each creature to adapt to its habitat and undergo minor changes as it does - which is what has been observed.
An alternative theory can be proposed but obviously this is politically incorrect - and oh yeah -- ridiculing Noah's Ark doesn't really help evolution's cause especially since I never mentioned I was a creationist proposing common descent from Noah's ark etc.I said originally that this article could fuel the creationist cause not that I was a creationist..

quote:

---

You are really moving pretty far from the points in your original post. First, you claim that there is a paper that exclaims that "thousands of mutations in 20-25 million years is remarkable
Then you decide to change this to the 5 million years or so since Australopithecus. Now you want to narrow this down to the few thousand years since civilization began. I'm not sure what the relevance any of this has to your original post.

---

That is not what I said. The scientists said in the paper ,"thousands of mutations in 20-25 million years is remarkable" . Obviously when you think about it - these changes must have happned from Australopithecus to erectus not before because this creature has a brain the size of a chimpanzee.
Then YOU claimed that this is not a problem and it only requires a few mutations in a thousand years.
So I countered that we could have observed any such similar mutations since you are assuming that such mutations are commonplace.Clearly such mutations have not being observed and this entire mechanism is all theory.Regardless of how valid you think evolution theory is, you have to admit that there is a very little that we know about the evolution of the brain.. Similarly we know very little of how complex organs have actually developed - there are numerous theories but no actual evidence. This is the major major stumbling block of evolution theory ...

quote:

---

A "Grand Designer" has been observed?

---

Ha Ha Ha.Creatures adapting to habitat and undergoing (very) minor changes has been observed.Most people claim to know a 'Grand Designer' He is normally called GOD

The paper does present a challenge to scientists to find answers in their lifetime. No doubt they are excited by it and are determined to do so.
However, the posters on this board are quick to dismiss their comment which is quite clear, they see it as a remarkable event. Of course I know they don't mean an act of creation (they don't, but a creationist will see this as furthering their cause). However, research in this field will either prove or disprove the mechanism of random mutations because of the time span (relatively short) that needs to be investigated.

quote:

---

without justification, decide to change it to the 5 million years since the time of Australopithecus,

---

My justification is clear. There is no evidence that the brains of Australopithecus was larger than chimpanzee. It just has not gone in the direction of brain development towards humans. Sure, if you can find a later species or intermeidate before erectus then we can increase the time span, but it certainly looks like around 5 million.

quote:

---

and then to the 10,000 years since civilization began.

---

I did not suggest any drastic change but said we mustobserve a few beneficial mutations related to the brain during the time of civilization. Additionally, from the dawn of civilization there was more natural selection pressures from humans to have even bigger brains and thus there should be some small indication of change from that period.
So in effect, we just need to find a small increase in brain size from the dawn of civilization to present - that is all. Has this been obvserved or not?
Because of the comparative recent times we are investigating, the verdict on this can be out pretty soon.
Actually I might have to restate what the major stumbling block of evolution is: when scientists start believing their little stories they make up (which are actually scenarios thought to fit the evidence and subject to change) as religion. It is so apparent in the silly series about the evolution of man running on the discovery channel.

quote:

---

It's also irrelevant to the points in the paper. They were not only estimating the number of mutations that simply increase brain size -- that might be a much smaller number. Evidently, they were estimating the number of mutations that might have occurred in the last 25 million years. So, the time since Australopithecus is not relevant to their estimate.

---

Are you sure about this?From the article -

quote:

---

The researchers focused their study on 214 brain-related genes, that is, genes involved in controlling brain development and function. They examined how the DNA sequences of these genes changed over evolutionary time in four species: humans, macaque monkeys, rats, and mice. Humans and macaques shared a common ancestor 20-25 million years ago, whereas rats and mice are separated by 16-23 million years of evolution.

---

And all I am saying from this bit:

quote:

---

In addition, the rate of evolution has been far greater in the lineage leading to humans than in the lineage leading to macaques.

---

Is that this rate of evolution must have happened in the time during erectus and after A. afarensis . If I am wrong then please tell me during which period when most of the brain evolution took place ..

quote:

---

I take that back; it looks very much like life wasn't designed by an intelligent designer at all, but a pretty dumb one.

​

What designer, pray tell, would design our skulls with a sharp ridge of bone on the inside of our skulls?

---

You say its a dumb design, yet you are the product of this design! Perhaps this Designer wanted to have a little laugh at these insignficant humans who dare to question Him! You know he may have delibrately designed you badly.. God did not make you perfect, so this 'dumb' design is part of the drawbacks of being human.. Really, you can't argue for evolution by trying to disprove God - it is silly.Like how Microsoft Windows is designed - not so perfect either..