Modular mind gradualism is mathematic...

Modular mind gradualism is mathematically incompatible with junk DNA theory.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#1 Apr 25, 2013
Evolutionary psychologists divide brains into thousands of modules. To gradualize that, each module itself must be asserted to have evolved in many hundreds if not thousands of steps. So modular mind gradualism demands that one or more millions of mutations must be relevant to brain evolution.

Neo-Darwinian geneticists say that most DNA must be junk. They say that otherwise there would be too many deletirious mutations. If their official figure of 1 percent protein-coding DNA and 4% functionally relevant regulatory DNA is used, that gives 5%. 5% of the 3 billion in the human genome gives 150 million. Most of that is eaten by the fact that different species share much of their DNA (while the evolutionary psychologists say that there is mind continuity across species as well, even the most diehard gradualists like Franz de Waal also says that even chimpanzees are not even halfway to the human mind, so that only eats a minor fraction of the problem). If we use the 1,4% difference figure and a relatively lofty idea of chimpanzee minds, and land on 2%, that gives 3 million mutations left. That in turn is severely pared down by the fact that neo-Darwinian genetics claims that junk DNA changes many times faster than functionally active DNA. So we land well below the necessary million, probably below a hundred thousand.

Bigger steps instead have problems with first individual evolution paradoxes. For instance, how be a first social individual when everyone else is solitary?

Either way, brain evolution cannot be explained within the framework of random mutation theory. So studying atypical cultures (both human and nonhuman) that deviates grossly from species norms is important to understand brain evolution.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#2 Apr 27, 2013
Ignore science, make shit up, and declare victory. Well done, sir.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#3 Apr 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
Ignore science, make shit up, and declare victory. Well done, sir.
If you had any scientific evidence that I was "ignoring science and making shit up" you could have posted that. You only posted a personal attack, simply because I did not ignore science or make any shit up. What I did was to point out an actual problem with a theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4 Apr 27, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had any scientific evidence that I was "ignoring science and making shit up" you could have posted that. You only posted a personal attack, simply because I did not ignore science or make any shit up. What I did was to point out an actual problem with a theory.
He was politely asking you for evidence of your claims.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#5 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
He was politely asking you for evidence of your claims.
No, he did not. He accused me of "ignoring science and making shit up". In what language is that to politely ask for evidence? In farsi? Furthermore, I did a mathematical calculation based on numbers directly out of mainstream dogma, and shown the mainstream dogma to be mathematically self-inconsistent. If you read the quantitative details of the mainstream dogma, you will understand the validity of my math.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Apr 28, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he did not. He accused me of "ignoring science and making shit up". In what language is that to politely ask for evidence? In farsi? Furthermore, I did a mathematical calculation based on numbers directly out of mainstream dogma, and shown the mainstream dogma to be mathematically self-inconsistent. If you read the quantitative details of the mainstream dogma, you will understand the validity of my math.
Considering how rude and uniformed your first post was here he gave you a very polite response.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#7 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering how rude and uniformed your first post was here he gave you a very polite response.
What exactly was "rude and uninformed" in my first post here?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Apr 28, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly was "rude and uninformed" in my first post here?
Take a biology class or two. Your lack of education is appalling.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Stockholm, Sweden

#9 Apr 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a biology class or two. Your lack of education is appalling.
Your persistent posting of contentless abuse, without pointing out any concrete errors, indicates that you cannot find any but just dislikes what I have shown.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Krypteia 173,594
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Chimney1 143,914
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr DanFromSmithville 178,695
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 18 hr Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Intelligent design Sun Paul Porter1 22
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
More from around the web