(additional non-applicable definitions from [ref 1] elided):

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Empirical: 1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 1b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. [ref 1]

Parameter: (2). One of a set of measurable factors, such as temperature and pressure, that define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment. [ref 1]

Induction: a. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. 2. A conclusion reached by this process. [ref 1]

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. [ref 1]

Scientific method: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. [ref 1]

Scientific Theory: I paraphrase and add to the definition of the single word "theory" in [ref 1], "A set of statements or principles devised to explain an empirically-observed group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly and successfully tested with the scientific method, widely accepted after many empirical observations and tests of the body of the theory, and can be used to make further predictions about natural phenomena."

Species: A taxonomic category subordinate to a genus (or subgenus) and superior to a subspecies or variety, composed of individuals possessing common characters distinguishing them from other categories of individuals of the same taxonomic level. In taxonomic nomenclature, species are designated by the genus name followed by a Latin or Latinised adjective or noun. [ref 2] [cancerweb] (Note: Using absolute reproductive isolation to define species is not adequate).

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition (allele frequency) of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, sometimes resulting in the appearence of a new species. [modified from ref 2] [cancerweb]

Evolutionary Theory: The scientific theory that all species originated through the process of evolution.

Taxonomy: 1. The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships. 2. The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics. [ref 1] For an example of the glorious classification structure of taxonomy, see here.

Technology: (Anthropology) The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials. [ref 1]

haplotype: The set, made up of one allele of each gene, comprising the genotype, representative of an individual within a population. There are a finite number of haplotypes within any species. See for instance.

SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism): Single-base differences within a genotype. SNPs are one source of variation that gives rise to haplotypes within a population as they are one source of allelic variation. See for instance.

dbSNP: A database that catalogs SNPs within gene loci in the human genome. There are currently 518467 known allelic variation SNPs estimated through studies of a limited number of individuals (NCBI, build 114).This number will likely increase as more individuals are studied See for instance.

Just some points to consider...wolves and dogs are by his definition one species? Donkeys and horses can interbreed with sterile progeny -- are they by his definition one species? Various conure parrot species can still interbreed even though they, in the wild, would not normally select for a mate with plumage outside their species. These conures have radically different plumage, average body size, behaviors, and natural ranges -- are they one species? Outside of these examples, he may believe that he's just talking about physical reproductive barriers between two members of the SAME species that have been human-bred to differing physical proportions, and not genetic reproductive barriers. For instance, a chihuahua and a great dane are unlikely to breed, yet are still considered canis familiaris.

[Definition moved forward from subsequent discussion:]

Complex System: Any system which involves a number of elements, arranged in structure(s) which can exist on many scales. These go through processes of change that are not describable by a single rule nor are reducible to only one level of explanation, these levels often include features whose emergence cannot be predicted from their current specifications. Complex Systems Theory also includes the study of the interactions of the many parts of the system. See for example.

First, let me say my opponent's use of the word "theory" is correct in colloquial use, but incorrect in a scientific context. [ed: link] I believe my opponent means "hypothesis" here. That said, I would point out, just as an additional pedantic point, that it is not the actual inclusion of the "extra intelligent supernatural God" in the supernatural hypothesis which makes the opposing hypothesis "better". Each scientific hypothesis must be judged on how well it survives the scientific method as defined above, especially "...generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis." Therefore, hypotheses are judged as to their success as a predictive mechanism. The hypothesis of "God causes apples to fall" is unable to be applied to any kind of predictive framework for testing. Therefore, on its own, the supernatural hypothesis will not test well as it cannot be verified as true or false, so fails on its own inability to provide predictive empirical power. The comparison of one hypothesis to another is not what determines the fitness of a hypothesis; it is rather the fitness of the individual hypothesis. That said, any supernatural hypothesis must be able to generate "experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis" in order to be tested with the scientific method or it fails before it even reaches the conclusion stage.

It is up to the judges to make the decision on which explanation better explains the evidence. However, I have not seen my opponent provide any predictive, testable hypothesis using his creation hypothesis. I request that my opponent outline the "hundreds of years worth of experiments and research confirming creation theory" because I have seen no such experiments and research. The purpose of the debate, from the rules, is "The debate will not be over which view actually happened. The debate will be over which view is the most consistent with the evidence and therefore is the best explanation." To get back to the purpose of the debate -- which is to examine which explanation is most consistent with the evidence -- let us return to the actual definition of scientific theory, which my opponent accepts and claims that creation theory fits. The evidence in favor of evolutionary theory I presented to my opponent has not been addressed directly in terms of how Creationism addresses this evidence, nor has he presented evidence of his own. My opponent says, ""I accept your definition of a scientific theory and creation theory fits the definition." The definition of a scientific theory was defined as: "Scientific Theory: I paraphrase and add to the definition of the single word "theory" in [ref 1], "A set of statements or principles devised to explain an empirically- observed group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly and successfully tested with the scientific method, widely accepted after many empirical observations and tests of the body of the theory, and can be used to make further predictions about natural phenomena." Let me break this up stepwise and show that, if he accepts my definition of theory, and if he claims that creationism fits the definition of a scientific theory, and with both of these, simultaneously by definition accepts the purpose of the debate as outlined in the Rules post, then all complaints aside, he must show within this debate how creationism is truly a scientific theory as he must support his assertion by addressing the evidence. I will show this within the definition of scientific theory that my opponent has agreed on.

My definition of Creationism is that found in the dictionary. You can find this through dictionary.com. I supply the definition here. My apologies. I had assumed this word was not a "new term" that needed to have a definition supplied for it, as it's found in many dictionaries. However, there there are many fine shades of meaning of "creationism", for instance:

Creationism: n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. [ref 1]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This is rather centered around the Bible, however, so I will extend "Creationism" even further to mean:

Creationism: n. A belief in the supernaturally-directed creation of the universe including all living things, often based on belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts.

Creationism may argue that a single phenotype of "intelligence" arises from a pair of specially-created humans, but in order to provide at least 1.4 million neutral or slightly deleterious single-point variations currently observed across the human population from one specially created pair, mutation must have been extraordinary high to give us this current phenotypic diversity. Can creationism explain this vast distribution of "single nucleotide polymorphisms" within the living human population? Evolutionary theory actually requires these variations as they provide a distribution of variation across the population. As phenotypes certainly manifest across the human population, and each human bears in their genome over a million individual variations in comparison, past phenotypes of intelligence would vary across a population of individuals. For a definition and a primer of these polymorphisms, visit NCBI's SNP primer. For evidence of these polymorphisms and summaries of the number of polymorphisms in human (and other organisms) see the summary of dbSNP pages.

Population distribution of phenotypes, which evolutionary theory recognizes, provides a medium through which natural selection can operate. Therefore, it should be clear to anyone who has read my definitions that evolutionary theory must not only account for phenotype distribution, but actually require it, and thus has no need to draw a line where the "first" H. sapiens appears, since the theory by definition operates in populations through actions on phenotypes which are themselves distributions in a larger field of characteristics in the ancestral population. Therefore, according to evolutionary theory, H. sapiens as a species arose through a mechanism of selection on the phenotypes of our ancestor species and we see evidence of this both from the fossil record and from the human genomic evidence. We observe fossils that show a variation and progression in earlier hominid species that varied within the species, and the timeline for the strata in which these fossils fall is acceptable to evolutionary theory. I have presented the evidence for this in my previous post. Evolutionary theory does not need to suppose an immediate speciation event. Speciation could have occurred regionally, so that previous ancestors in some regions were retained and later went extinct. In fact, several hominid species overlap in time, as we would expect if "child populations" branched off (speciated) from an ancestral population. See for example a explanatory figure and see my previous post for examples.

Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the fossil evidence, and the fossil record is one of the first "laboratories" where evolutionary theory was applied -- tested, and adjusted to fit the observed data. Relationships observed in the fossil record -- which is obviously independent of the genetic data -- predict certain relationships between organisms. These predicted relationships are easily examined with the molecular evidence, and the data support the predictions made by evolutionary theory in light of the fossil record. I once again invite my opponent to re-visit the ERV evidence I have provided. in the previous post.

The second point you make is that theories should be supported by evidence. Keep in mind that this debate is about explanations not scientific theories. Even still it true that evolution theory does not support it's largest claims with evidence. Creation theory does. The holes in evolution theory and the strengths in creation theory will become clear as I progress through this reply.

This debate's purpose, by the rules, is to see which explanation best fits the evidence. Therefore, evidence requires an explanation. Since we are explaining evidence, and the most rigorous explanation of evidence would be within the body of a scientific theory, then Creationism must show how it is a valid scientific theory in order to adequately compare with evolution as the best explanation. My opponent agrees on my stated definition of scientific theory. A scientific theory, I will remind him, is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain an empirically-observed group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly and successfully tested with the scientific method, widely accepted after many empirical observations and tests of the body of the theory, and can be used to make further predictions about natural phenomena." Note the phrase, "devised to explain". Is it not obvious to my opponent that a scientific theory is the best and most impartial explanation of physical evidence? It is surprising if it is not, especially since he agreed on the definition of scientific theory and then claimed Creationism was a valid scientific theory.

Primates are not tailless. I'm not sure what my opponent is getting at, here. He can examine the taxonomic classification of primates to see where they fall to include those with tails. Further, I see that my opponent is giving me back the point that I've been delivering in respect to the definition of "human" for the past two posts: a definition must encompass all individuals no matter what the phenotype. As he points out, fringe phenotypes are no less human than average phenotypes. A definition should be general enough to include all members of Homo sapiens no matter what their phenotype. A definition of "H. sapiens" must include the ability to recognize and classify individual Homo sapiens of all phenotypes within the species. That is the whole point of recognizing phenotypes. Phenotypes of H. sapiens are still H.sapiens, with two heads, or with no legs, or with missing eyes, or small brains. A definition of H. sapiens must include all individuals, not just those who can read or understand the Bible. Evolutionary theory says that such definitions may have to be wide, as there could be a very wide distribution of phenotypes in the first place (as we see even in simple polymorphisms on the human genome).

Unfortuately for my opponent, he is indulging in a few fallacies in this paragraph alone. He is accusing evolutionary theory of an inability to be falsified due to circular reasoning. This is a strawman of modern evolutionary theory. There are numerous physical homologies between primates that are obviously not simple similarities and rely on their existence alone to establish primates as sharing a common ancestor. My opponent is also confusing evolutionary theory with taxonomy. Taxonomy historically is a systematic science interested in classification. Taxonomy classification can define "primate" without a reference to evolutionary theory, and in fact many species were classified by taxonomists in a recognizably modern way well before Darwin took his trip on the Beagle. See Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 who was the "father of modern taxonomy" who founded the modern science of taxonomy and was in fact, like many of his day, a Creationist. By taxonomic standards, primates are defined not by their relationship to humans but rather, like any other taxonomic classification, defined by their relationships to one another. It is true that as time has gone on, taxonomic classification has been further refined to include evolutionary relationships. However, in order for my opponent's strawman to assume flesh and bone, it would require that taxonomy define primates in terms of humans, in order to define humans in terms of primates! However, that clearly is not the case, for taxonomy defines primates through an independent series of physical definitions shared by all species and defined in relation to those common characteristics, and NOT human characteristics. See for example here. Therefore, it can readily be seen that evolutionary theory does not need to rely on the definition of "primate" to make a prediction for the evolutionary origins of humans. If there was no taxonomy of "primate", the use of evolutionary theory would allow researchers to deduce from all other species those species most similar to the human species. Researchers can accomplish this by physical and genetic phylogeny studies without the actual taxonomic classification of "primate" to guide them.

As for my opponent's assertion that evolutionary theory predicts that DNA similarities result from a common ancestor, he is only correct if he means to imply that modern evolutionary theory predicts that all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution as defined at the top of this post -- and that more recently diverged species are more likely to have similar genomes than more distantly diverged species.

Then my audience can observe that this particular point -- of genetic similarity appearing as if the genomes once shared a common ancestor -- supports evolutionary theory in that evolutionary theory predicted, pre-genomic era, the similarities we now observe through the independent observation of the fossil record. The similarities are not just similarities, but predictable TYPES of similarities from the central core tenets of evolutionary theory --mutation and selection -- at a level of detail that is remarkable for its predictive power.

My opponent is guilty of stringing together multiple topics in this one paragraph, but this may be out of ignorance of the separate nature of these topics. In this paragraph, my opponent builds several straw men - cariactures of what evolution does or does not say. This is again, probably out of ignorance of what evolution really does or does not predict. My opponent once again deftly avoids using empirical evidence for any of his assertions while simultanously ignoring the evidence against his assertions. Evolutionary theory can provide satsifactory explanations for human intelligence because it can declare that human intelligence arose from an earlier, less-intelligent state by the action of evolutionary change (see definition above), a hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method. In fact, some work has been done to link the complex necessities of larger social groups with the evolution of human intelligence. Indeed, humans are both highly social animals (a trait that evolved within the primate line and not unique to humans, see [ref 5]) while also being superb generalists in that we are able to deliberately adapt ourselves to nearly every macro-environmental niche on the planet from extreme heat to freezing cold. Some researchers have linked prey hunting and the demands of successful hunting in a species not well adapted (as are large carnivores, for instance) to intelligence. Early humans would have needed to eat meat to be able to sustain movement and migration to other environments as well as for further survival, and had to become better and better prey hunters despite the fact that human evolutionary history was limited by its primate (food gathering) origins, necessitating cognitive advances [ref 8]. The researchers in [ref 8], in fact, give predictive power to their hypothesis that the need for hunting -- both in the actual fact of hunting and the teaching of hunting to the younger generation -- gave rise to human cognitive ability and many of it its traits in the context of the human social group. Therefore, it is not beyond the ability of evolutionary theory to explain that human cognitive ability could have arisen over the span of several hominid species, especially since hominid species engaged in activities that were demanding of cognitive ability: hunting, food sharing within social groups, and nomadic lifestyles that demanded generalization. The historical limitations of the primate physiology coupled with the demands of nomadic life (hunting and generalization) are certainly two powerful forces that would have guided selection for greater intelligence, as there certainly is more plasticity in an increase of intelligence versus large morphological changes to make humans more like big cats, for example.

My opponent further states that a sudden increase in brain capacity would be needed. This is an incredibly ignorant argument that ignores any knowledge of the fossil record of early-to-late hominid braincases. The fossil record, on its own, in fact, does not exhibit an accelerated rate of "brain swelling" and there is no evidence that within living human individuals that brain size indicates level of intelligence. It was previously thought that the human frontal cortex was significantly expanded in relation to living primates. However, that has been shown not to be the case, in that actual physical size is not an indicator of human intelligence. Semendeferi et al have shown that "We compared the relative size of the frontal cortices in living specimens of several primate species, including all extant hominoids, using magnetic resonance imaging. Human frontal cortices were not disproportionately large in comparison to those of the great apes. We suggest that the special cognitive abilities attributed to a frontal advantage may be due to differences in individual cortical areas and to a richer interconnectivity, none of which required an increase in the overall relative size of the frontal lobe during hominid evolution." [ref 10] Indeed, even in the fossil record, we certainly see slowly increasing cranial capacity with only an average difference between any two species in the fossil record. Brain case size is not exclusive of species. For instance, see ref 10]. A significant increase in intelligence for a modest increase in brain size over evolutionary time certainly speaks well for evolutionary theory, as evolutionary demands for greater hominid intelligence would manifest first as a change in brain organization to create an increase in intelligence within the existing morphology of the brain case which would later increase slowly as on-average demands for larger brain cases gave more and more space to optimize brain organization within certain hominid lineages. There is no need for evolutionary theory to suppose a sudden swelling in the brain; nothing of the sort is observed or expected and my opponent exhibits a complete lack of understanding of brain organization to suppose such a ridiculous assertion.

A doubling of brain size over (at least) six million years is assumed by my opponent as "sudden" My argument holds. Gradual increase in brain size is supported by the fossil record.

[ed: link] [ed: link]

My opponent then goes on to ask why no other species has gained intelligence. First, evolutionary theory predicts the evolutionary pathway of any one species will depend on its history as well as its current environment. There is no evidence that chimpanzees have at any time moved outside of their niche in which they are well adapted without large evolutionary pressures for increase in intelligence. More generally, selection is geared toward fitness for an organism's niche. Evolutionary theory can explain that our ancestors found advantage in adaptation and generalization because of a nomadic and hunting lifestyle, and this spurred the gain of increasing orders of intelligence in order to learn how to cope with new environments. Intelligence increased in those social groups (tribes/families) who were able to sustain a hunting lifestyle. Additionally, only those early hominid social groups who were able to adapt themselves to changing environments would be selected to survive. Our early ancestors may have become more intelligent specifically because of nomadic requirements. Predictions for this kind of hypothesis, and how it can be tested or falsified in the context of evolutionary theory, are given in [ref 8]. I therefore request that my opponent either support his statements in his paragraph with evidence against the out-of-Africa genetic evidence, or retract his statements.

I will ask my opponent to re-read the last sentence in my earlier response, again. He will note that I did not say my opponent must argue against my theory. I said he must supply "evidence against the out-of-Africa genetic evidence". This evidence was presented in references. My opponent has not shown contradictory genetic evidence that shows that humans did not all originate in Africa several million years ago. As the genetic evidence, taken from living humans, shows that humans originated in Africa millions of years ago, Creationism must respond to that evidence. If my opponent wishes to show that this evidence is incorrect, he must show why it is incorrect. Creationism must be able to explain the genetic observation that our genetic ancestors originated in Africa, an observation independently supported by the fossil record, and which is another strong case for evolutionary theory.

No empirical evidence has been given in this paragraph, just supposition and hand-waving without testable hypothesis or empirical evidence. I would ask my opponent what the "earliest known languages" are that are complex, and how are they defined as complex, in relation to what metric? My opponent does not cite the source of his examples of written language and conflates it with spoken language. What is his evidence that written symbols have anything to do with spoken language, or evolutionary evidence for human language? Evolutionary theory does not have difficulty with predicting human language development. Generally, some authors cite the demand complex language within a large social group in the formation of human intelligence [see ref 7]. Language most certainly would have provided an advantage to early hominids in social communication of abstract concepts in hunting and tracking prey as well as communication of nomadic patterns and understanding of each local environment would have required early nomadic hominids to develop a language. But most striking, human language ability has been shown to have a genetic link. In fact, recent work on the FOXP2 gene in humans with severe language disorders has allowed researchers to propose that disruption of the region around this one gene causes abnormalities in orofacial control needed for the fine movement necessary for the spoken human language. See OMIM 605317. The developmental defects in the brain created by mutations within this genetic region are still being studied but are suggested to have a role in brain organization that allows for the fine orofacial movement. Studies in fetal brain show that FOXP2 is likely affecting post-migratory neuronal differentiation during development. [refs 11, 12, 13] Indeed, FoxP2 has been shown to have a strong pattern of recent positive Darwinian selection. Svante Paabo's group published on the evolutionary evidence in FoxP2: "We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution." [ref 14] Although study of FOXP2 and development needs to be moved to other primates, the disruption of the loci around FOXP2 and its links to language disorder indicates that the developmental, brain-organizing role of a single gene controls some aspect of human language ability. Since genes are themselves subject to mutation and selection, and since Svante Paabo's group has found that the specific mutations in FOXP2 relative to other primates may indicate selection for these changes in humans, it is clear that evolution has evidence in favor of mutation and selection allowing for the development of verbal language in humans, which certainly pre-dated written language. I therefore request that my opponent retract his claim that language cannot have arisen through known evolutionary mechanisms (mutation and selection).

And, due to the responses of even non-biological complex systems, we know that even if vast amounts of data were available for modeling, no theory may ever be able to fully predict all detailed evolutionary behavior in any one population. By definition, complex systems can respond in unpredictable ways to miniscule changes in input parameters. Even simple complex systems exhibit behavior whose dynamics are unable to be predicted in trajectory detail by any theory, which is the point of the study of "complex systems" in the first place. Evolutionary theory predicts that phenotypes are selected on fitness for the environment, and the selection is conditional on the evolutionary history of the organism itself. If my opponent is objecting to the idea that evolutionary theory does not currently and explicitly predict the "next stage" in evolution of an organism in fine detail, then he should understand that evolutionary theory will indeed be able to do this kind of prediction when we have all the data necessary to make the prediction. Meteorologists have relatively more data about weather patterns than biologists have about ecosystems, populations, and organisms. However, much as a meteorologist can make general predictions about the weather, scientists will be able to predict evolutionary responses to environmental changes. Since we cannot accurately predict the weather even with a vast wealth of past weather patterns and prediction algorithms past a certain level of general detail, so too will the complex systems inherent in the natural world likely present an ambiguous picture on future evolutionary responses outside of general trends. If a scientist had all biological and ecological variables and their ranges known, such as the entire biochemical system of an organism and its entire ecological niche and interactions, the evolutionary behavior of the complex system (organism) would be able to be generally predicted using evolutionary theory. To infer the next evolutionary step of an organism requires a vast data set that we are only beginning to accumulate. However, in a limited sense, we are beginning to be able to predict evolutionary changes in systems with limited degrees of freedom. See, for example, Walter Fitch (UCI) and his work on predicting the evolution of influenza virus (which still suffers from lack of data). There is no fault in evolutionary theory in predicting general evolutionary trends; it is the lack of data that is the restriction, as can be shown in the predictive success on the level of the available data.

In kind, I challenge my opponent to show how his creation"theory" can make predictions on any complex system, including the behavior of metabolic systems of organisms, while using the principles he will no doubt outline in his reply to the response to the post preceding this one. Since creation theory cannot address the mechanisms of mutation and selection explicitly, it lacks the ability to explain the evidence of mutation and selection we currently observe. Evolutionary theory, however, predicts that the evolution of language depends on mutation and selection. Since mutation operates on genetic material (genes), and the effects of positive selection can be detected on genes, I showed that FoxP2 was a gene that can be presented as evidence for the fact that language evolved as predicted by evolutionary theory. What my intention was, in last week's reply, was to present evidence that evolutionary change does apply to at least one aspect of human language (speech) -- that of fine orofacial muscle control. This control depends on the function of a single gene. Since genes are alleles, subject to variation within a population, and can manifest as phenotype variations, then selection can operate on phenotypes that arise from these genetic variations. . Evolutionary theory predicts that in order for humans to have developed language, they did so from a pre-language-ability state, in which a copy of the FoxP2 gene existed but existed in another allelic form (for instance, in an ancestral form to both chimpanzees and humans). Evolution predicts that the ability to use language, as well as understand language, must have evolved through the action of mutation and selection and only those two mechanisms. In fact, the differences in the FoxP2 gene between chimpanzees and humans are exactly the type of mutational differences one would expect if FoxP2 had been undergoing positive Darwinian selection on this single gene. I have presented evidence on a gene that has evidence not only that it controls the development of facial control, but also that there is evidence of selection on this gene, which manifests as distinct changes within the gene as evolution would predict if there was indeed positive selection. I invite Creationism to offer its explanation for this evidence in detail, down to the type of mutations observed in FoxP2.

I cannot see what his objection comes from, unless he cannot see that his statement demands the conclusion from the definition of evolutionary theory. He said, and I quote from two sentences in his paragraph, "But just as with human intelligence evolution theory fails to predict language ability. " and "And at the very least evolution theory failed to predict language ability to develop." Since evolutionary theory predicts that language would have arisen through known evolutionary mechanisms, and my opponent is claiming that evolutionary theory "fails to predict language ability to develop", he is claiming that evolutionary theory fails to predict language ability to develop because it cannot use its predictive principles that use known evolutionary mechanisms. They are one and the same. With that explained, I invite my opponent to show where the substantial difference exists between:

1. Claiming that "evolutionary theory failed to predict language ability to develop"

and

2. Claiming that evolutionary theory fails to predict language developing by the application of its predictive principles - which operate through (currently) known evolutionary mechanisms

and

3. "there is no solid evidence that the ability to learn language can rise through known evolutionary mechanisms working on life systems."

My opponent can begin by going to the Human Behavior and Evolution society webpage where he can find links to vast resources on evolutionary psychology, and where he can see that his hand-waving arguments towards evolutionary behavior are unfounded. For instance, I can offer several dozen references linking human behavior to evolutionary theory, but let us begin with a simple introduction to the field for my opponent.

There are some basic principles of evolutionary psychology.

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances. Evolutionary theory predicts that humans are equipped to behave in ways relative to our environmental circumstances.

Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history....

Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry...

Principle 4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems....

Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.

[taken from ref 15 and journal references therein].

For instance, qualities of "conscience" can be explained by the selection of individuals who participate in a cooperative social group. It's known from even human directed breeding of domesticated animals, among them the horse and dog, that behavior can be selected for, and general temperament is inheritable. I suggest that my opponent go to reference 15 and start reading at least the primer on that site, and extend his reading to journal articles cited there, before he attempts to extend his claim that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about human behavior. I therefore request that my opponent retract his claim that evolution has nothing to say about human behavior or provide evidence against the citations I've provided him.

If he is indeed familiar with the field, despite his blanket dismissal of its contribution through denying it has anything meaningful to offer beyond "after-the-fact handwaving", then I believe my opponent will have little problem citing research and evidence to show that any one of his three positions above (or any of his others on this subject) are supported by evidence and show that published works on evolutionary psychology involve only alleged hand-waving.

First, I will ask my opponent what key prediction of evolutionary theory has been falsified by his handful of hand-waving arguments with no citations to actual data in metrics or observations. My opponent acknowledges that in-population variations in size and morphology can occur, but how can he suggest that species-wide morphology changes, for instance, between H. erectus and H. sapiens, can exist? Does my opponent have evidence that in recent or existing humans there exist those who have ape-like features and whose skeletons would be mistaken for an "ape" (not-human)? If so, my opponent is required to provide evidence for this assertion. My opponent also notes that when creationists attempt to classify early hominid remains as "ape" (not-human as per his definition) and human remains, they run into difficulty. However, if these fossils were truly human and representative of a range of normal human skeletal morphology, why do creationists have such a hard time classifying them? We certainly do not have Homo erectus-like humans walking around Wal-Mart now-a-days (though some in t.o. might argue this point out of humor). There is no evidence for these kinds of hominids occurring in the recent human lineage. If hominid fossil remains were not human but instead "ape", why would it be difficult to classify their remains as "NOT-human"? Why do we not see living humans or primates with the same morphology as evident in Homo erectus, H. habilis, or other fossils classified by creationists as belonging to either human or "ape"? (see for example ref 16).

Perhaps he can show how the complete skeletal features of transitional species show up in today's population. I require proof and evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Give me a modern human skeleton that looks like Homo habilis, or Homo erectus, down to the details of the bone structure. As my opponent will recall, arguing on anecdotal evidence is not allowed. Furthermore, I demand my opponent show where "evolutionists" ignore modern-looking humans from fossil records but keep the "ape-men".

It is clear that my opponent dismisses the existence of transitional fossils with a hand-waving implicit appeal to ignorance. There is a vast wealth of data refuting his misconceptions, all of which are contained in the talk.origins archive, especially in Jim Foley's hominid FAQ [refs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. but perhaps my opponent would like me to spell some of those arguments here if he cannot search the requisite literature to refute the evidence provided by the archive. Let us begin with Jim Foley's Fossil Hominid FAQ and references therein, and allow my opponent to address each transitional as either human or non-human. Can my opponent claim which one is ape, and which is human? Can he give his reasoning for the specific classification of ape or human for any of those fossils? Notably, earlier in the debate, my opponent takes the stance that brain size indicates human intelligence, but all Homo erectus fossils have brain sizes that are much smaller than the average human size (see new 2002 evidence at ref 17). But erectus is often classified as human by creationists. Therefore, my opponent must make up his mind: Is Homo erectus really human, or is it an "ape" per his definition, when given reference to morphology and brain case size? My opponent must state his criteria for discerning the two, for if mankind was a separate creation, why is there no demarcation between "apes" as he defines them, and humans? If my opponent uses the old creationist argument of disease affecting the stature of Homo erectus, he should provide evidence that the same disease was affecting such a widely scattered group of individuals, and provide the observable symptoms of such a disease. He must also provide a hypothesis as to why in this particular span of fossil time, all hominids found look as if they were affected by the same disease.

How is Turkana boy too damaged to tell the difference between ape and human? Why are creationist fossil 'experts' not immediately saying, "No way, can't classify these...too damaged for me to tell the difference!" Or is my opponent apologizing for those who tried to judge the transitional skulls? Again, I invite him to examine the review with references.

So why does my opponent insist that evolutionary theory insists that a sudden brain swelling was necessary for increase in human intelligence in order to allow for transition from ape->human? Why would he believe both that the growth of a larger brain capacity is so extraordinary in the human fossil record on one hand, but on the other hand try to point out to me that brain size does not matter after all? Recall that he said, "What about human intelligence? Evolutionary theory fails to give a satisfactory explanation for human intelligence. There would have had to have been a sudden swelling in brain size to fit humans onto the evolutionary timeline." Perhaps my opponent, in addition, can read my replies more carefully, where I say in response to his statement on brain size, and I quote, "as modern human intelligence can be comfortably sustained in brains of various sizes with no correlation between intelligence and brain size. It is rather the organization within the brain, such as the interconnections and developmental characteristics that would first increase intelligence [ref 10]. A significant increase in intelligence for a modest increase in brain size over evolutionary time certainly speaks well for evolutionary theory, as evolutionary demands for greater hominid intelligence would manifest first as a change in brain organization to create an increase in intelligence within the existing morphology of the brain case which would later increase slowly as on-average demands for larger brain cases gave more and more space to optimize brain organization within certain hominid lineages." So why is my opponent suggesting that I'm not "up" on my scientific research when it seems he can't even read what I had posted in my last reply?

Homo erectus has more morphological features - in skull traits and skeletal differences, than merely brain size to discern it from modern Homo sapiens. See for example Turkana boy. I invite my opponent to show me how Homo erectus is classified just on brain size and not on traits such as a particular sulcus/brow ridge and skull morphology. My opponent can perhaps show me references where the researchers said, "This is just a smaller brain size, so it's Homo erectus." while ignoring all the other skull and skeletal characteristics that would define the skeleton as posessing characteristics of either H. sapiens or H. erectus.

As for intermediates, the very intermediates he dismisses as humans with "ape-like" characteristics or vice-versa are clearly what evolutionary theory would predict of transitional fossils. My opponent claims that transitional fossils do not exist. But we know there are clear trends from early hominids to modern humans, "increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens."[ref 17] My opponent must show how his theory can explain these transitional fossils which were dated appropriately and whose dating follows an apparent transition from early hominids to modern humans. My opponent is also charged with dismissing the evidence for Turkana Boy, and show that Turkana boy is not a transitional fossil using the scientific method. See ref 18. He is also challenged with showing why the Dmanisi fossils are not an adequate transitional form between habilis and erectus [ref 17] when they share the qualities of both fossils. If he cannot dismiss the evidence for these specific transitional hominids, he must retract his claims that none such exist.

It's amazing to me that this myth (courtesy of Robert Gentry's multiple-assumption theory of radioactive decay) keeps on appearing, especially since it's been refuted numerous times at this newsgroup as well as at talk.origins.org, in the polonium halos faq, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html and this has been pointed out, time and time again, on this newsgroup. What more can I type to refute this argument, other than point my opponent to the well-dogeared FAQ on the subject? Let me quote for my opponent the summary from that FAQ, which refutes the claims made by Gentry in a popular science magazine: "Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth." In other words, Gentry doesn't have a leg to stand on, to criticise radiometric dating, and by association, neither does my opponent.

My opponent had said the so-called intermediates between man and ape can fit on one desk. Let us assume that a largish desk is five feet long by three feet wide. That is 15 square feet. The evidence for human transitional fossils can be found at reference 19. Jim Foley has said, "One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare" [ref 19]. I leave it to my opponent to prove that all of these intermediate skulls and remains can adequately fit on a 15-foot square desk without piling them up atop one another. My opponent is invited to use basic mathematics and the estimated size of each of the fossil remains for his calculation, and a justification for his estimation. If he cannot do this, he is requested to withdraw this claim.

There is no reason to suggest that the "thousands of fragments" would be abandoned, either (and this is begging the question -- can his thousands of fragments fit on a billiard table as he claimed?) Ramapithecus sat at the base of the human evolutionary tree until scientists -- the same scientists who are active in the field of discovering and classifying new fossils -- decided it didn't belong there. I fail to see the shocking failure in evolutionary theory within a re-working of the primate evolutionary tree on the arrival of new evidence. I would demand, in fact, as a scientist, that the evolutionary tree be examined and re-examined, and brought up to date with every piece of new evidence. This should instill confidence in science, not doubt. When evidence arrives, science can correct itself, instead of blindingly going forward in its previous mode. Science builds itself up on evidence. One can tell non-science by its adherence to its own principles without reference to the evidence (and I am still waiting for my opponent's evidence). Creationists will criticise evolutionary theory as weak for being too accepting of change, too plastic in its approach to evidence, but in the next breath accuse science of being blind to the "truth" and dogmatic in its approach. Which alternative does science best fit into, truly? Are scientists blindly stubborn and sticking to their own ideas of evolutionary theory, or are they willing to change given new evidence? Which alternative would creationists best like to complain about out in either of these? Perhaps my opponent can kindly qualify that for me, without resorting to what I see as typical Creationist comfortable yet ambiguous fence-walking.

How can we have "thousands" of fragments fitting in fifteen square feet? If thousands of fragments were to be re-ordered on the family tree with the arrival of new evidence, what would we do with the thousands of fragments plus the new evidence? Are these very tiny fragments? Now, how about including the complete skulls and large skeleton pieces? There are many more than fifteen skulls known.

My opponent is in some ways recapitulating the multiregional hypothesis of human origins, which has in recent years fallen into disfavor. The single uniregional hypothesis, in which early hominids stayed in Africa and expanded in a single wave and never returned toward Africa, is under discussion, but multiple waves of migration out of Africa are best supported by the evidence. The fact that humans originated in Africa is not under serious debate. This hypothesis has been upheld by both fossil and genetic evidence through the study of both human mitochondrial and nuclear DNA signature regions [see ref 9]. This genetic data shows that humans moved out of Africa in several discernable "waves" over a long span of time, which is apparent in the genetic record of extant human beings. Therefore, based on the independent data gathered from human genetics as well as the fossil record, a hypothesis on human origins is proposed: Early hominids may have found migration necessary for survival because of environmental changes or demands for food, and this migration originated from Africa but in successive waves moved across Asia and then occasionally back into Africa over hundreds of thousands of years. My opponent is charged with showing how it is impossible that groups of hominids could not have migrated from Africa to Asia in the span of hundreds of years, let alone thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years. All of these time periods would look nearly "simultaneous" in the fossil record. If my opponent cannot do that, he must retract his claim. I have evidence that a human being can walk vast distances in a few years time, certainly more than we are demanding of nomadic hominids. The "Footsteps of Man" trek is currently involved in this. [ref 21]. Certainly seven years of trekking around the world is extraordinarily fast and no migrating hominid group would attempt such a feat, but it's obvious that migratory movements of early hominids could have easily placed hominids of the same species across continents in the space of a few thousand years, a span of time too short to show morphological/evolutionary changes in the migrating species. How does my opponent explain the lack of homo erectus or homo habilis fossils outside of the connected continents of Europe, Asia and Africa?

The African peoples are us. Those of us with pale skins are pale Africans. I would suggest my opponent treat others with more respect other than trying to suggest that they have throwback traits. Secondly, there is nothing simple about that suggestion, other than perhaps in that it reads like a bedtime story out of a racist storytelling book. And to add insult to injury, my opponent should go read the homind fossil record again. Erectus fossils are found in Asia, but none in the Americas. Neandertal remains are found in Europe but not in the Americas. Does this mean the American Indians are somehow superior to Asians and Europeans in terms of creation, as they are not found with Habilis or Erectus fossils? See the talk.origins fossil FAQ, especially entries like:

"Jul 2002: The fossil skull D2700 discovered at Dmanisi, Georgia, is the smallest and most primitive hominid skull ever discovered outside of Africa, and although tentatively assigned to Homo erectus, it and two other skulls and three lower jaws appear in many ways to be intermediate between it and H. habilis. (Vekua et al. 2002, Balter and Gibbons 2002) These specimens have since been allocated to Homo georgicus (Gabunia et al. 2002)"

My opponent has been supplied the evidence. My opponent is now dismissing the evidence without reason. I challenge him to show why this is hand-waving. Can he say why it's hand-waving when it relies on actual genetic evidence?

Successive waves of migration by hominid groups could have very well stabilized the genetic compliment of any migratory hominid species by gene flow until a speciation event. By definition of a migratory species, members of that species will continue to interbreed within the migratory range. Fossils found in various places in Asia, Europe and Africa do not indicate that Homo erectus was non-migratory when they died. Evidence against gene stabilization by migration would show a range of regional speciation, not a wide dispersal of a certain species of hominid on continents connected by migration. As speciation is not believed to have a clock associated with it, as my opponent seems to believe that evolutionary theory dictates, even a small amount of gene flow could stabilize a hominid population such as H. erectus from speciation through successive migrations and interaction between nomadic tribes. There would have been nothing to stop such nomadic bands from occasional interaction, interbreeding, and therefore gene flow. Perhaps my opponent could supply evidence that speciation was required to have occurred in Homo erectus? For instance, my opponent can begin by showing that speciation would not have been prevented by gene flow during the time that Homo erectus was migrating throughout Eurasia. My opponent perhaps would also address the studies of dispersal efficiency study of Homo erectus as compared to other fossil primates, which of course assumes that Homo erectus was migratory. [ref 22-23] In fact, using data and observation, my opponent is required to show that H. erectus could not have remained a species within the fossil site's simultaneous time frames in order to support his claims. If he cannot use data and calculation to back up his claims as outlined in his paragraph above, I request that he retract them as they have no evidence.

As for impossibility of interbreeding between nomadic tribes, even assuming they have diverged into tribes that do not recognize one another, I have no idea why my opponent would claim that culturally divergent peoples would not interbreed. How soon after the first whites landed in America did they start interbreeding with the Indians? How often did blacks and whites interbreed among the various continents during the Colonial era? How many of us find a person from another culture attractive, mysterious, and fascinating for that reason, over and above the obvious personal attraction? Cultural differences are rarely a barrier to sex and interbreeding. In fact, several academics spend their time studying interbreeding among different "racial" groups: "American historian Clarence Walker can talk about the prevalence of interbreeding among Native Americans, African Americans and Anglos in the 17th and 18th centuries and the effects it has had on Native Americans. "On the East Coast, there was a great deal of intermixture between red, black and white," Walker reports. "In New England, as Indians were driven into towns, they married blacks and disappeared from the census." He can also talk about how the reality of a mixed-race America belied the 19th century political and cultural images of the United States as a "white" nation." [link] Despite my opponent's belief that two sets of culturally seperate people will not be attracted to one another, sex and interbreeding between culturally diverse people still happens today. Perhaps my opponent believes the opposite, but the numbers of babies born between members of different cultural groups will offer opposing evidence.

My opponent should address the evidence with his "creation theory". So far, the only "evidence" he has offered has been of his own invention, and some quotes from popular magazines.

Except that there is evidence for basic building by nomadic people pre-dating large settlements. See for example.

I never said that intelligence would or would not allow someone to farm. If my opponent recalls, I was originally responding to his complaint that "There is a massive leap in technology which evolution theory does not predict or explain." and other statements like that. I was showing exactly how evolutionary theory does attempt to explain the data of 1) a nomadic people during the paleolithic era 2) a slow appearence of civilizations over the neolithic into the bronze age. Nomadic lifestyles were good training grounds for increasing intelligence of nomadic peoples as we see in the growing sophistication of tools through fossil strata. As successful humans became more numerous, tribes may have found it easier to "stake out" a claim of fertile, rich and abundant land of their own in order to avoid competition with other nomadic tribes. A central stronghold (city) would enable a group to protect and defend this land claim (see recent modern castles). Since a small range of land would not adequately support large herds of animals, the nomadic tribes turned to cultivation of plants near to the city stronghold -- plants that were erstwhile gathered by ranging of hunting and foraging, and were now required to supplement their diet.

Nobody suggests that this happened "all at once" or "made all humans decide to become civilized". In fact, fossil evidence has alread shown that Paleolithic and Neolithic people were transitioning very slowly between nomadic and settled agricultural people, by slash-and-burn and other methods of cultivating plants long before these people"settled"into agricultural centers to become agricultural civilizations. See the article in Science with evidence (available in full text) here : http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm. Why wouldn't an increased population density due to increasing populations of the successful Homo sapiens, and competition for the most fertile land NOT cause competing tribes to stake out fertile "territory" for themselves, and eventually dig in (create cities) to defend those territories most successful in cultivating crops? That is certainly not unusual human behavior..

As for the massive leap in technology, all evidence points to the fact that even in an advanced civilization such as Egypt, stone, bronze, and wood tools were still used to erect buildings. There is no evidence that a "massive leap in technology" was anything but a radical change in technology from that of a nomadic people to those within a city. Evolutionary theory certainly can speak to the difference in lifestyles. Clearly a farming civilization would offer its inhabitants an easier and more productive lifestyle than a nomadic one, as members could grow more food than they could eat. One must wonder why the advantageous change from nomadic to city-life, concomitant with the growth of city architecture, is so amazing to someone trying to discount evolutionary theory.

I must ask my opponent to carefully consider how much further evidence he demands from me when he has produced none of his own. Creation "theory" does more hand-waving and supposition in these collections of posts than anything I have offered as I base all my scenarios on the empirically-derived evidence. I offer that early humans found nomadic life much easier to maintain because of the sparse distribution of early humans, and the lack of a need to stake out a claim for fertile or productive territory over these hundreds of thousands of years. I invite my opponent to reply to the evidence of thousands of years of nomadicism with his own explanation, and without trying to resort to the discredited tactic of trying to dismiss radiometric dating techniques.

But, back to the predictive power of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts that a species such as Homo sapiens, that has evolved under the conditions outlined by me in these posts, will have evidence of mutation and evolution within the genes controlling brain development and cognition, to not only show that intelligence was "increased" by mutation and selection but that we see the signature of the mutation and selection within the gene itself. In fact, we should see evidence of this mutation and selection on the "fossil record" of all affected genes on the human genome, for all to see. Now, some of this data has recently been produced as evidence of recent Darwinian selection on FoxP2 and the Paabo papers on chimp-human gene expression differences in brain. I invite my opponent to argue with this evidence.

Genome Res 2003 May;13(5):831-7 Selection on human genes as revealed by comparisons to chimpanzee cDNA. (Hellmann I, Zollner S, Enard W, Ebersberger I, Nickel B, Paabo S.) [abstract]

The DNA evidence used to show that creationism is the wrong theory includes several different evidences, among them a page I made about endogenous retroviruses which I invite my opponent to dismiss away using creationist arguments using the data I have included, as well as web-live links to research papers within my web page at that address. My opponent should discuss why the observations of endogenous retroviruses are incorrect, why ERVs are not really viruses but instead functional elements deliberately part of the human and chimpanzee genome although they code for viral proteins, and why ERVs are likely to insert themselves at the same place in human and chimpanzee. Otherwise, I request my opponent retract his argument that "creation science" has no problem with DNA evidence, as it cannot explain chimp-human shared ERVs.

My opponent says, "Creation theory has no problems dealing with DNA and other similarities.". Let me define "science from Webster's: ". Science has many sub-definitions. One is, "Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind....Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science." I submit that "creation theory" must have an associated "creation science", and furthermore, I would remind my opponent that objecting to creation theory as a "science", calls into question the status of creation science as a scientific theory as he claimed in the first post to this three-party reply? I will understand if there is a dilemma, as Creationism must indeed still prove that it is a scientific theory.

That said, I will turn the quibble over a quoted term into the original point of my paragraph's reply. I said, "I request my opponent retract his argument that "creation science" has no problem with DNA evidence" because it cannot explain chimp-human ERVs." My opponent countered with, "That said, creation theory has no problem with DNA evidence. Since you are the one claiming these sequences are retroviruses then please define "endogenous retrovirus" and demonstrate how you know this is a retrovirus." Researchers know that these sequences are retroviruses because they have a signature of a retroviral genome, which includes proteins unique to viruses, including code for virus capsid proteins -- proteins which are unique to viruses. and which are well-known and studied in depth in retroviral research, especially given the decades of intense HIV research. I will point out to my opponent that the definition of endogenous retrovirus has been supplied on the web page I gave a link to. Additionally, I have given the DNA example of one such ERV, I have given examples of how to re-generate the evidence, and the live links to PDF files that explain more about ERVs. If my opponent wishes to dismiss all this evidence and then claim I have not proven anything, then my opponent is guilty of dismissing the evidence as presented to him, as all his answers were supplied in live links to the literature and the web page provided here.

Additionally, my opponent is guilty of a strawman argument when he says, "The evolutionist assumes that something is worthless because they don't understand it's purpose" In fact, "evolutionists", especially scientists who may or may not be named Steve, are always interested in something that they do not understand, as that is where new studies are found. For instance, in PubMed, a search on the quoted phrase "new purpose" found 14,688 hits. A search on the quoted phrase, "previously unidentified" found 1035 hits, "heretofore unidentified" found 32 hits, and of course, that ubiquitous word, "novel", found 186287 individual science papers that include the word. However, doing a search on "junk DNA" in the literature yields 65 papers. Do Creationists understand the implications of "junk DNA" or the mechanism of its incorporation into the genome? My opponent clearly confuses the identification of "junk DNA" with "non-functional". Clearly "junk DNA" can have a function if co-opted into a functional situation, as the ERV that deposited itself just upstream of the INSL4 gene was shown to have, recently. However, there is no reason to confuse the IMPLICATIONS of junk DNA with function. This is an error that many creationists make. Junk DNA is, on the whole, likely not to have an immediate function. This is an important point that my opponent must attend to: it is the mechanism of incorporating (in this case) the ERVs that is the key to understanding evolutionary relationships, not the presence of the ERVs themselves. If we were unaware of how ERVs place themselves into the human genome, we could easily dismiss them as functional elements that were shared between chimp and human. However, we know ERVs are viral sequences, and we know how they expand and re-insert themselves actively back into regions on the human genome. The fact that ERVs randomly insert themselves at a particular "sequence address" and the fact that we can see chimpanzees and humans have the same "fossil" ERVs in the same sequencing address within both genomes represent past insertion events that occurred in an earlier ancestor. It is up to my opponent to show that the evidence contained on the above referenced webpage is incorrect and that ERVs are not viral sequences, nor are they inserted at random, for within that webpage is the evidence or references to evidence that they are, and they do.

The same position is a sequence-dependent position. In 3.2 billion base pairs, there is unique sequence flanking any ERV insert region that is found no other place in the genome. The unique insertion point of this retroviral sequence is shared between chimps and humans. I suggest my opponent spend a few minutes reading up on ERVs and what is considered "the same position" in regards to sequence evidence."

This does nothing to strengthen the argument for creation. Wild beasts often ate early hominids for lunch. Has my opponent ever tried to go play with a pride of lions, and does he think they'd roll over and let him pet them? A human is not the lord over all animals, and to suppose such a thing ignores the fact that humans can very well be meat for most of the large carnivores on this planet. Creation theory does not do a better job at explaining human intelligence in a testable manner, than evolutionary theory, as I have given evidence for, above. I suggest my opponent limit his statements to those supported by empirical evidence.

Is my opponent suggesting that any "healthy" human being has the ability to fashion a tool to kill a lion and would be for the most part successful in this? Is my opponent aware that modern animal-killing tools long post-date the time when humans were first sharing space with carnivores, and that even in the bronze age, feats such as lion-killing were a sign of exceptionally great strength and prowess? It was believed exceptional that any one person could kill a lion, until the invention of tools like guns and gunpowder. Invention of tools long after the supposed start of "dominion" over all animals is no proof that we have dominion. The relatively recent invention of tools such as guns and gun powder indeed makes it easy for mankind to destroy other animals, assuming that someone trying to hunt a large predator wouldn't get killed themselves in the process. That is not dominion; that is merely ability for long-distance destruction. I fail to see where "dominion" comes into play except at the gross level of "dominion means I can destroy anything I want". More to the point, mankind's interaction with animals can generally be placed in three categories: animals we've domesticated for use (and bred for docility), animals who will co-exist (notice, ignore, avoid) human beings in their own ecosystems, and animals which, if mankind intrudes on their ecosystem, will likely as not eat an average, solitary human being with or without ammunition if given the chance. Where do we see dominion, outside of domestication? If we truly had dominion, why would events like bullfighting be so exciting and dangerous to the people in the ring?

They also make perfect sense in Evolutionary theory, in which social conscience evolved over millions of years within primates that had better survival as part of structured clans and societies. Individuals as weak and defenseless as primates would be selected for survival and reproduction by their success in a stable social group.

Comparitively speaking, primates are physically weak and defenseless, given we have no evolved "tools" for defending ourselves outside of our brain, our running speed can easily be out-paced by most four-legged running animals, our teeth and jaws don't have biting power like canines or felines, our claws don't exist, and our two-legged gait makes for some awkward center of gravity. I could go on. Perhaps my opponent misunderstood, for instance by comparing a current "modern man" in its overall gracile characteristics with the robust Neandertals. But I am comparing primates as a group, exterior to all primates within the group.

Except creationism cannot show that there was any discontinuous gap between "ape-men" and "human" and why they evolved the same. All creationism can do is wave its hands and wallow in a contradiction: which is ape, and which is human? Evolution has no such problems, and does not have to suppose the instantaneous creation of hominids to explain the origins of the human species, as shown above.

Creation theory must make a decision: If there were no "ape-men", and only "Men" and "apes", then where does creationism draw the line, and what criteria will it lay out? Certainly something as "true" as this creation theory must be able to draw a line between "ape" and "man"...and if it cannot, why can't it? I invite my opponent to examine the evidence and say what characteristics clearly show a man is a man, and an "ape" is an "ape".

Creationism has provided no evidence that complex buildings did not arise by the simple fact that nomadic peoples transitioned into stable agricultural communities with additional food and resources to attempt such buildings. Evolutionary theory, while not directly concerned with human architecture, can certainly explain the advantages of an agricultural lifestyle over a nomadic lifestyle. Creationism cannot falsify this claim.

My opponent misunderstands the apparent "problems" in the archaeological record. When I say Creationism cannot falsify this claim, I am saying that Creationism, independent of evolutionary theory, cannot show that nomadic peoples did NOT settle into an agricultural lifestyle, because creation theory dismisses the evidence and instead has made some sweeping generalizations, INDEPENDENT of the evidence, and ignores the evidence that early nomadic peoples existed and pre-date agricultural civilizations for thousands of years. I invite my opponent to show how Creationism can make the claim that humans were specially created and did not exist as early nomadic peoples, based on the evidence presented to him.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [link]

2. CancerWeb dictionary. Published at the Dept. of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne © Copyright 1997-2003 - The CancerWEB Project. All Rights Reserved. [cancerweb]

3. Jim Foley, "Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes", quoting Hrdlicka A. (1939): Normal micro- and macrocephaly in America. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 25:1-91. [link]

4. McHenry HM. Tempo and mode in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994 Jul 19;91(15):6780-6 [link]

5. Dautenhahn, K. Evolvability, Culture and the Primate Social Brain. [link]

6. Robin I. M. Dunbar. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16:681-735, 1993. [link]

7. Further readings on the links between evolution, intelligence and language can be found here.

8. Kaplan H, Hill K, Lancaster J and Hurtado AM (2000) A theory of human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:156-185. [link]

9. Templeton A. Out of Africa again and again. Nature 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):45-51 [abstract]

10. Semendeferi, K., Lu, A., Schenker, N. and Damasio, H. Humans and great apes share a large frontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5:272-276, 2002. [abstract]

11. Lai CS, Fisher SE, Hurst JA, Vargha-Khadem F, Monaco AP. A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature 2001 Oct 4;413(6855):519-23 [abstract]

12. O'Brien EK, Zhang X, Nishimura C, Tomblin JB, Murray JC. Association of Specific Language Impairment (SLI) to the Region of 7q31. Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Apr 29 [epub ahead of print] [abstract]

13. Ferland RJ, Cherry TJ, Preware PO, Morrisey EE, Walsh CA Characterization of Foxp2 and Foxp1 mRNA and protein in the developing and mature brain. J Comp Neurol 2003 May 26;460(2):266-79 [abstract]

14. Enard W, Przeworski M, Fisher SE, Lai CS, Wiebe V, Kitano T, Monaco AP, Paabo S. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature 2002 Aug 22;418(6900):869-72 [abstract]

15. Leda Cosmides & John Tooby. Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer. (1997) at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology. [link]

16. Jim Foley. "Comparison of all skulls" in the fossil hominid faq, and references therein at the Talk Origins Archive. [link]

17. Jim Foley. Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus. in the fossil hominid faq at the Talk Origins Archive. [link]

18. Jim Foley. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) and references therein in the fossil hominid faq at the Talk Origins Archive.: [link]

19. Jim Foley. Prominent hominid fossils, in the fossil hominid faq at the Talk Origins Archive. [link]

20. Jim Foley. Fossil hominid FAQ at the Talk Origins Archive. [link]

21. Footsteps of Man. [link] [pictures]

22. Anton SC, Leonard WR, Robertson ML. An ecomorphological model of the initial hominid dispersal from Africa J Hum Evol 2002 Dec;43(6):773-85 [abstract]

23. Satta Y, Takahata N. Out of Africa with regional interbreeding? Bioessays 2002 Oct;24(10):871-5 [abstract]