Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'

I think that what's amazing about the brain isn't it's size but it's cognitive abilities. So, when I see a cartoon of a naked man that lived 1oo,ooo years ago looking unsure about, whether or not, the rock in his hand might be a tool, I know that he didn't have the cognitive brain I have.
It seems that brain size is supposed to be the great signature of the evolution of man. I suppose it's because it's the only remnant of the past that can be empirically measured which relates to the brain of man. This is a unfortunate state of affairs for the theory of evolution since, the data being discussed (brain size) is so crude that it can't ever rise to the level of scientifically rational extrapolation...er something other than hot air. The other data (quantity of mutations)only allows analysis of things as they are now.
What convinces me that the theory of evolution is falsified by these circumstances is my belief that man, can't survive, and couldn't have survived without cognitive ability enabling man to use fire, clothing and tools.
Without fire man can't cook, dry out nor keep warm. Man therefore, would've required adequate hair for survival. But, if man once upon a time had adequate hair there wouldn've been any need for clothes and so, any evolution of hair loss would've been immediately selected back out of existence.
Without tools man hasn't any advantage over nature. Without advantageous tools man would've perished in his competition with all the ferocious animals that do have all of the natural advantages.
Without clothing man can't protect his body against the perils of life in the wilds and will perish. It is interesting to note that the shame associated with nakedness has no evolutionary rationale.I submit that the lack of these three things (fire,clothing,tools) can be proven to be life threatening.
So, without congitive ability man perishes. So, how did man survive until he obtained the benefit of cognitive thought? If man once had all the natural endowments of things needed for survival as a wild beast, there remains no rationale for natural selection of the loss of those very things.BTW...what came first the eye's of man or the holes in his skull in which they fit, and funtion?Joman.Without tools man can't obtain advantage over his nature.

I think that what's amazing about the brain isn't it's size but it's cognitive abilities. So, when I see a cartoon of a naked man that lived 1oo,ooo years ago looking unsure about, whether or not, the rock in his hand might be a tool, I know that he didn't have the cognitive brain I have.
It seems that brain size is supposed to be the great signature of the evolution of man. I suppose it's because it's the only remnant of the past that can be empirically measured which relates to the brain of man. This is a unfortunate state of affairs for the theory of evolution since, the data being discussed (brain size) is so crude that it can't ever rise to the level of scientifically rational extrapolation...er something other than hot air. The other data (quantity of mutations)only allows analysis of things as they are now.
What convinces me that the theory of evolution is falsified by these circumstances is my belief that man, can't survive, and couldn't have survived without cognitive ability enabling man to use fire, clothing and tools.
Without fire man can't cook, dry out nor keep warm. Man therefore, would've required adequate hair for survival. But, if man once upon a time had adequate hair there wouldn've been any need for clothes and so, any evolution of hair loss would've been immediately selected back out of existence.
Without tools man hasn't any advantage over nature. Without advantageous tools man would've perished in his competition with all the ferocious animals that do have all of the natural advantages.
Without clothing man can't protect his body against the perils of life in the wilds and will perish. It is interesting to note that the shame associated with nakedness has no evolutionary rationale.I submit that the lack of these three things (fire,clothing,tools) can be proven to be life threatening.
So, without congitive ability man perishes. So, how did man survive until he obtained the benefit of cognitive thought? If man once had all the natural endowments of things needed for survival as a wild beast, there remains no rationale for natural selection of the loss of those very things. Admin message: The below is not on topic. The above is not necessarily entirely on or off topic - care must be taken when responding to it. Note to Joman - with some refinement it might suit a PNT

BTW...what came first the eye's of man or the holes in his skull in which they fit, and function?Joman.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.