Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
64 online now:
dwise1, Tanypteryx (2 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,000 Year: 3,646/14,102 Month: 266/321 Week: 82/44 Day: 24/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What bothers me about the evolution of Man
Moon-Ra
Junior Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-01-2011


Message 31 of 142 (642926)
12-02-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
12-02-2011 4:09 PM


Re: nearest relatives that are left.
jar writes:

One thing to remember is that what we see today are only the nearest relatives left, those that did not pose a serious threat to modern humans.

That's completely true and often missed, when you say "our brain is much more powerful than our close relatives", you have to remember that there are many other lineages of humans that went extinct (think Neanderthal), not to mention the "close" relationship between us and apes dates at least 3 million years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 12-02-2011 4:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 12-02-2011 4:31 PM Moon-Ra has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 32 of 142 (642927)
12-02-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Moon-Ra
12-02-2011 4:22 PM


Re: nearest relatives that are left.
There seems to be a pattern, that every Homo species that has come in contact with Homo sapiens is extinct.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-02-2011 4:22 PM Moon-Ra has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-02-2011 4:33 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Moon-Ra
Junior Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 12-01-2011


Message 33 of 142 (642928)
12-02-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
12-02-2011 4:31 PM


Re: nearest relatives that are left.
Yes, the pattern is: survival of the fittest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 12-02-2011 4:31 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8175
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 142 (643063)
12-04-2011 1:53 PM


One theory is that the brain evolved alongside language - but it's inconclusive. Certainly once whatever it was that first caused the growth in brain size and function we can assume that it had significant competitive advantage because it just got bigger and bigger for millions of years.

Why it only happened once in all of the animal kingdom is a little surprising too.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2011 10:35 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1042 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 35 of 142 (643065)
12-04-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-02-2011 7:48 AM


No knowledge; barely even hypothesises
How did our brains get so overpowering.

We don't know. There are no well constructed theories with a solid evidential backing. There isn't even anything close.

My fellow posters have put forward the major contenders, but the truth is that we just plain don't know. Partly this is inevitable; it's difficult to imagine where we'd even get compelling evidence from given the lack of information that the fossil record can provide on the subject. Partly it's that our knowledge of how the brain works, and the molecular evolution of the human brain, are extremely rudimentary.

Even the brain power of a goldfish is astounding a few cells of brain matter and you can actually train a goldfish.

The brain of a goldfish does not contain a "few cells", unless you consider 7 and a half million "a few".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-02-2011 7:48 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by frako, posted 12-04-2011 2:21 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 36 of 142 (643066)
12-04-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Jack
12-04-2011 2:04 PM


Re: No knowledge; barely even hypothesises
The brain of a goldfish does not contain a "few cells", unless you consider 7 and a half million "a few".

Well compared to a dog who has a bigger brain then the whole fish


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2011 2:04 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8175
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 37 of 142 (643067)
12-04-2011 2:29 PM


A related puzzle, or maybe more evidence of how valuable our brains are, is the fact that having such a large brain is a very distinct reproductive disadvantage. The babies brain is so large that it doesn't fit easily in the birth canal and without medical intervention a very large number of mothers and babies simply die in childbirth.

Then the baby has to be born whilst it's still immature because if it carried on growing to the physical maturity of most mammals at birth, the head would be so large that it simply couldn't emerge from the mother. This means that the mother has to invest many years of full time nurturing inorder to get her offspring to the point were it can survive on its own.

Quite a puzzle (or maybe a possible reason why our kind of conscious intelligence is as rare as rocking horse droppings.)


Life, don't talk to me about life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 12-05-2011 9:21 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2011 10:29 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 38 of 142 (643112)
12-05-2011 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-02-2011 7:48 AM


fraco writes:

How did our brains get so overpowering.

We don't know exactly how. However, all the empirical evidence we have indicate that it did.

One thing we do for sure know is that our brains weren't poofed into existence from nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-02-2011 7:48 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Chuck77, posted 12-05-2011 5:14 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 42 by frako, posted 12-05-2011 8:04 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 142 (643114)
12-05-2011 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Pressie
12-05-2011 4:26 AM


Pressie writes:

One thing we do for sure know is that our brains weren't poofed into existence from nothing.

Then by all means layout the exact way evidence suggests it came into existance.

Since you "for sure know" it wasn't created at one moment in time then show us how it was.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 12-05-2011 4:26 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Panda, posted 12-05-2011 5:50 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Pressie, posted 12-05-2011 7:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2650 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 40 of 142 (643115)
12-05-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chuck77
12-05-2011 5:14 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Since you "for sure know" it wasn't created at one moment in time then show us how it was.


It's called the Theory of Evolution.
Perhaps you have heard of it - even if you have never bothered learning about it?

The evolution of man has been quite thoroughly researched.

Do you have some evidence to show that our minds were instantly created?
Do you think that your own mind was poofed into existence?


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chuck77, posted 12-05-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 41 of 142 (643118)
12-05-2011 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chuck77
12-05-2011 5:14 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Since you "for sure know" it wasn't created at one moment in time then show us how it was.

Evidence. As has been pointed out to you: The Theory of Evolution. Together with lots of other types of evidence.

Apart from all that, I've also seen new species evolving (through all kinds of mutations, genetic drift, natural selection, etc.) both in the lab and in nature, right in front of my very own little eyes.

I can give you an example of where you can go and see evolution of a new species happening right in front of your own little eyes.

Never seen a species "poofed" into existence, ever, though.

Do you have an example of where a species would "poof" into existence where I can go and have a look where and when it happens?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chuck77, posted 12-05-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 42 of 142 (643134)
12-05-2011 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Pressie
12-05-2011 4:26 AM


We don't know exactly how. However, all the empirical evidence we have indicate that it did.

I dont know either thats why im asking duh...

lol

One thing we do for sure know is that our brains weren't poofed into existence from nothing.

The magic poofing theory is silly but there could be an alternative the Alien astronaut theory aliens needed a workforce that could do stuff for them

So they genetically enhanced an indigenous friendly ape species

And given that we dont know for sure how the process went down the possibility remains combined by all the "evidence" for the alien astronauts you find on the web it still remains plausible.

added for a laough by EDIT:

Teach the controversy alien astronaut theory should be taught alongside evolution and in creationist churches

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 12-05-2011 4:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 43 of 142 (643135)
12-05-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
12-02-2011 3:58 PM


Re: Size Matters
I haven't had time to vet my theory in the scientific arena, but I'm sure it's correct.

Makes sense to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 12-02-2011 3:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 44 of 142 (643136)
12-05-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
12-04-2011 2:29 PM


Quite a puzzle (or maybe a possible reason why our kind of conscious intelligence is as rare as rocking horse droppings.)

The simple answer is that, yes, it is a disadvantage to have immature big headed kids.

But, but and but, the disadvanted is massively out weighed by the advantage to the child (of having a big brain and neotogeny) if it survives childbirth.

Many children would have died but, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 2:29 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 142 (643148)
12-05-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
12-04-2011 1:53 PM


Why it only happened once in all of the animal kingdom is a little surprising too.

There have been multiple species in the Homo genus that were fairly intelligent and not our ancestors. It happened more than once.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 1:53 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2011 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021